Opinion ID: 2481385
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: People v Fernandez

Text: In January 2007, defendant Joao Fernandez was charged by misdemeanor information filed in New York City Criminal Court, Kings County, with multiple counts of aggravated harassment in the second degree after he contacted his former paramour by telephone 62 times in one evening and repeatedly threatened her with physical harm. Fernandez and the complainant had been involved in multiple prior Family Court cases regarding disputes about their two children. After his arraignment in New York City Criminal Court, the case was transferred to the IDV Part in Kings County Supreme Court where a non-jury trial was conducted. Fernandez was convicted of three counts of attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree and sentenced to concurrent terms of one year's probation. He was also directed to participate in a variety of domestic violence accountability and other programs. Although Fernandez raised no objection in the trial court to the transfer of his case, in his appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department, he argued that the IDV Part  an arm of Supreme Court  lacked the authority to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over his misdemeanor case because it was prosecuted by information rather than an indictment or superior court information issued after waiver of indictment. Defendant also contended that the Chief Judge and Chief Administrative Judge exceeded the scope of their authority when they issued the IDV directives. [1] In addition, he sought reversal based on an asserted evidentiary error. The Second Department unanimously rejected defendant's arguments and affirmed his conviction ( People v Fernandez, 72 AD3d 303 [2010]). A Justice of that court granted defendant leave to appeal (14 NY3d 807 [2010]).