Motion to Dismiss in the Interest's of Justice (Clayton Motion)
Motion to dismiss in the interests of justice can be handy tools in a New York City Defense Attorney's repetoire in order to get a case dismissed. But judges often deny these motions absent some compelling reason to grant them. The folowing is a fictitious motion, but is typical of what an "interests of justice" (Clayton) Motion will look like. Ask your attorney about them.
Or if you are unrepresented and facing a New York Criminal charge or violation, call 212-786-2999 to discuss if you are a good candidate for a motion to dismiss your charge. These motions generally work best with minor non-violent defenses and when the Defendant has no prior criminal record.
CRIMINAL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Docket No: 2011NY
ROBERT BRIERE, an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York, who is the attorney of record for the accused, Chad Penderwick, hereby affirms under penalties of perjury, pursuant to CPLR 2106, that under information and belief, the facts set forth herein are true:
- This Affirmation is made in Support of the relief requested in the annexed Notice of Motion. I make this affirmation upon information and belief. The basis of this belief is conversations I have had with the defendant and documents that he has provided.
- The defendant stands before this Court charged with littering (aka public urination) in violation of NYC Health Code Section 153.09, which is a misdemeanor.
MOTION TO DISMISS IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE:
- It is hereby requested that this Court, as a matter of discretion, find that prosecution of the defendant would constitute or result in injustice because of the existence of the following compelling factors, consideration and circumstances:
- With regards to the seriousness and circumstances of the offense: The charge relates to urinating in a public place at 1:30am in New York City before a dinner event.
- There was no discernible harm caused by Defendant’s actions, Defendant was observed by no one but his friends and a police officer. He was in NYC for a fund-raising dinner for climate change awareness where he was the guest of Honor. On his way from his Hotel to the Dinner, the taxi in which he was riding broke down on a desolate street and he tried to use a public bathroom but was turned away. No other taxi's were available to take him to the dinner and he was taking medication for an enlarged Cyst, a side effect of which is know to cause frequent urination. Left with no other options, he found a dark alley clearly beyond site of the general public. Suddenly, a police officer yelled at him from just a few feet away. .
- With regards to the history, character and condition of the defendant; Defendant is a Citizen and has no history of any type with regards to a criminal offense. He works for a fortune 500 company.
- He is 42 years old and worked hard his entire life to be responsible and independent. Growing up in a small town outside of a community in Detroit, he started working fulltime during summers at the age of 12 doing manual labor at his father’s g s father'nt of a fortune 500 companyas station.
- Throughout his teenage years, he continued working summers and later, evenings while in high school to help support his family and to later save for his postsecondary education.
- After graduating valedictorian from High School, he went to a small liberal arts college where he was head of the debate team and captain of the Lacrosse team.
- After graduating near the top of his class from college, he begin working and was promoted twice within the first year and eventually rose to his current position.
- The purpose and effect of imposing upon the defendant a conviction for this offense would have an unduly harsh impact on Defendant. While Defendant is aware that his offense requires him to be held accountable, he worries of the impact of a criminal charge on his ability to operate in his capacity at his current job, whhere he has to go submit annually to an extensive background check.
- Defendant respectfully contends that there would be no negative impact of a dismissal of this urination charge upon the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system.
- Dismissal of the charge would have no negative impact on the safety of the community as Defendant has absolutely no prior criminal convictions or even convictions for a violation.
- Based on the Foregoing, Defendant moves this court for an order dismissing the count of the information in the interest and furtherance of justice, pursuant to CPL 210.40 and People v Clayton (41 AD2d 204) or in the alternative, an ACD with instant sealing.
- WHEREFORE, defendant, by his undersigned attorney, respectfully requests that this court grant him the relief requested in the annexed notice of Motion together with such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.
DATED: NEW YORK, NEW YORK
October 10, 2011
Robert Briere, Esq. (RB6080)
110 Wall Street Fl11
New York, New York 10005
Attorney for Chad Penderwick