## Facts

- Samantha R. was 16 years old and had no prior criminal history.
- Police officers observed her for about 20 minutes in a public place, including standing in the middle of the road while beckoning to motorists.
- The accusatory instrument alleged she repeatedly beckoned to passersby, stopped and spoke with two passersby, and directed her conduct only toward males.
- She was arrested and charged with loitering for the purpose of engaging in prostitution under N.Y. Penal Law § 240.37(2), a noncriminal violation (punishable by up to 15 days in jail).
- The allegations did not include that she completed any act of prostitution.
- At arraignment, the Criminal Court raised on its own motion whether the case should be dismissed in the interest of justice, including in light of the Safe Harbour for Exploited Children Act.
- The court permitted both sides to submit written motions and responses addressing dismissal.
- The People argued the case should proceed because prosecuting teenage prostitution-related conduct was said to assist efforts against sex trafficking.
- The court noted Samantha was also the subject of an outstanding Family Court warrant.

## Issues

1. Whether the Criminal Court should dismiss, on its own motion, a violation-level loitering-for-prostitution charge in the interest of justice under CPL 170.30(1)(g) and CPL 170.40.
2. Whether the Safe Harbour for Exploited Children Act may be considered in the CPL 170.40 analysis for a 16-year-old charged with a prostitution-related offense.
3. Whether, on these facts, prosecution or conviction would result in injustice when weighed against public safety and law-enforcement interests.

## Decision

- The Criminal Court dismissed the accusatory instrument in the interest of justice under CPL 170.30(1)(g) and CPL 170.40.
- The court followed the procedure associated with People v. Clayton by identifying dismissal as a possibility and giving both parties an opportunity to be heard through written submissions.
- Applying the CPL 170.40(1) factors, the court emphasized the low-level nature of the charge (a noncriminal violation), the defendant’s age, and her lack of a criminal record.
- The court treated the Safe Harbour Act as reflecting legislative intent that sexually exploited youth should be handled through services and Family Court mechanisms rather than criminal prosecution, and concluded that continuing this prosecution would be unjust on the record presented.

## Legal Principles

- A Criminal Court may dismiss an accusatory instrument “in the interest of justice” under CPL 170.30(1)(g) and CPL 170.40 when a factor-based review shows that prosecution or conviction would result in injustice.
- An interest-of-justice dismissal is discretionary and requires consideration of the CPL 170.40(1) factors, including the seriousness and circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s history and character, and the impact of prosecution on the public’s confidence in the criminal process.
- When a court considers interest-of-justice dismissal on its own motion, it must give the parties a meaningful chance to be heard, consistent with Clayton practice.
- Legislative policy in related statutes, including the Safe Harbour for Exploited Children Act, may inform whether a criminal prosecution of a minor for prostitution-related conduct serves justice, particularly where the record indicates the youth may be a victim of sexual exploitation and other court-based interventions are available.

## Conclusion

The Criminal Court dismissed a loitering-for-prostitution charge against a 16-year-old first-time accused after inviting briefing and weighing the CPL 170.40 factors, concluding that continuing a criminal prosecution for a noncriminal violation would be unjust and inconsistent with the Safe Harbour Act’s treatment of sexually exploited minors as needing protective intervention rather than criminal punishment.


People v. Samantha R., 2011 Misc. 3d 1235, 941 N.Y.S.2d 540 (2011)