Defendant AR Vernon LLC, the owner of the residential apartment building located at 240 East 3rd Street, Mount Vernon, NY 10550, is alleged to have violated numerous sections of the International Property Maintenance Code. Defendant contends that it is entitled to a jury trial in the instant matter. The People oppose the motion. The three accusatory instruments, under Docket #s CR-5742-19, CR-5743-19 and CR-5744-19, collectively charge that on August 12, 2019 and August 13, 2019 Housing Inspector Kim Knotts, of the Mount Vernon Department of Buildings, found the presence of mice and roach infestation throughout the entire building, bed bug infestation in certain parts of the building, and numerous other property maintenance violations including but not limited to broken doors, water leaks, cracked ceilings and walls, cracked tiles in bathrooms and common areas, inoperable smoke detectors and exposed wires throughout the building. Defendant received three separate written Notices of Violation, two on September 20, 2019 and one on October 4, 2019 with regard to the aforementioned violations. Said Notices of Violation were issued pursuant to Executive Law §382(2). Executive Law §382(2) provides as follows: Any person, having been served, either personally or by registered or certified mail, with an order to remedy any condition found to exist in, on, or about any building in violation of the uniform fire prevention and building code, who shall fail to comply with such order within the time fixed by the regulations promulgated by the secretary pursuant to subdivision one of section three hundred eighty-one of this article, such time period to be stated in the order, and any owner, builder, architect, tenant, contractor, subcontractor, construction superintendent or their agents or any other person taking part or assisting in the construction of any building who shall knowingly violate any of the applicable provisions of the uniform code or any lawful order of a local government, a county or the secretary made thereunder regarding standards for construction, maintenance, or fire protection equipment and systems, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars per day of violation, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both. The defendant allegedly failed to remedy the noticed violations and subsequently, the defendant was issued three appearance ticket violations on October 9, 2019. Thereafter, on October 18, 2019 the People filed the instant accusatory instruments. Defendant contends that it is entitled to a jury trial since Executive Law §382(2) authorizes a maximum one year of imprisonment and pursuant to PL §55.10(c) the offense is considered an unclassified misdemeanor. As such, defendant asserts that pursuant to both CPL §340.40 and the Sixth Amendment it is entitled to a jury trial. Defendant is a corporation. This does not appear to have been considered in defendant’s demand for a jury trial. The Court of Appeals held that since a corporate defendant cannot be imprisoned and the only sentence that can be imposed against it is a fine, a corporate defendant is not entitled to a jury trial under New York law (People v. L.A. Witherhill, Inc., 29 NY2d 446 [1972]; People v. Pride Homes, 70 Misc 2d 736 [Long Beach City Ct 1972]). The defendant’s CPL §340.40 and Sixth Amendment claims are unavailing. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to trial by jury in the case of “serious offenses”, which has been defined as an offense carrying a possible prison sentence of more than six months (Baldwin v. New York, 399 US 66 [1970]). A corporate defendant that is not exposed to imprisonment, and if convicted would only be required to pay a fine, is not entitled to a jury trial under CPL §340.40 nor the Sixth Amendment (People v. Pride Homes, supra). Where the building code violations charged in the accusatory instrument are considered petty offenses, the corporate defendant is not entitled to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment (Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 US 538 [1989]). The seriousness of the punishments attached to the particular offense is determinative. As relate to monetary fines, it is only the imposition of serious fines that may engender a right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment (Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 US 821 [1994]). There is no specific threshold amount for a fine that triggers the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial (Id.; see also, New York City Tr. Auth. v. Transport Workers Union of Am., AFL-CIO, 35 AD3d 73 [2nd Dept 2006]; Department of Hous. Preservation & Dev. v. Deka Realty Corp., 208 Ad2d 37 [2nd Dept 1995]. In the instant case, the corporate defendant makes no allegation that it is entitled to a jury trial because of potential imposition of serious fines. Moreover, PL §80.10 sets fixed dollar limits on fines that may be imposed on corporate defendants. The limitations that may apply in this case include: Five thousand dollars when the conviction is of an unclassified misdemeanor for which imprisonment in excess of three months is authorized [PL §80.10(1)(b)]; Two thousand dollars when the conviction is of an unclassified misdemeanor for which imprisonment not in excess of three months is authorized [PL §80.10(1) (c)]; Five hundred dollars when the conviction is of a violation [PL §80.10(1)(d)]. Defendant cites no legal authority suggesting that fines imposed under PL §80.10 violate its Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. While the fines described in the Notices of Violation and accusatory instrument for violating the Property Maintenance Code are stated as up to $1,000.00 per day, since the defendant is a corporation and the penalties for violating the Property Maintenance Code, as set forth in Executive Law §382(2), contain no specific corporate fine and provide for a maximum term of imprisonment exceeding three months, the fines against defendant would be imposed pursuant to PL §80.10(1)(b) (People v. Russell Place Realty Co., Inc., 36 Misc 3d 123(A) [App Term 2nd Dept 2012]).The Court finds that the defendant is not exposed to any imprisonment because it is a corporation and the potential fines that may be imposed if defendant is convicted do not rise to the level of being so unreasonable or onerous as to trigger the defendant’s right to a jury trial. Accordingly, the defendant’s demand for a jury trial is denied. The parties are directed to exchange required discovery within ten (10) days of this decision and shall appear for a pre-trial conference on February 5, 2021. This constitutes the decision of the Court. Dated: January 20, 2021
