IN THE MATTER OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSIGNED COUNSEL PLAN OF THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, APPELLANT, HILLEL BODEK, M.S.W., C.S.W., RESPONDENT.
THE PEOPLE &C. v. JAMES TOWNSEND (AND OTHER CRIMINAL ACTIONS.)
87 N.Y.2d 191, 661 N.E.2d 988, 638 N.Y.S.2d 415
December 21, 1995
1 No. 245(1995 NY Int. 293)
Decided December 21, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Julian L. Kalkstein, for Appellant.
Brian Rosner, for Respondent.
New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, amicus curiae.
PER CURIAM:
In Matter of Werfel v Agresta (36 NY2d 624), this Court held that an
order issued pursuant to County Law §§ 722 and 722-b regarding an
assigned criminal defense attorney's compensation is not subject to
appellate review. This appeal requires us to consider the
appealability and reviewability of compensation orders issued pursuant
to County Law § 722-c.
The dispute arises out of services that were rendered by respondent
Hillel Bodek, a certified social worker, in connection with several
criminal cases that were pending before the Supreme Court in New York
County. In each instance, Bodek had been appointed by the court to
provide professional services to indigent defendants and the court
directed that the City of New York pay him at a rate of $100 an hour
for those services. In seven of the eight cases, the court also found
"extraordinary circumstances" justifying significant departures from
the statutory norm of $300 per case (see, County Law § 722-c).
The Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan for New York City asked the
two Supreme Court Justices who had issued the compensation orders to
reconsider them, particularly in light of contemporary budget
constraints and the $45 maximum hourly rate for social worker
prescribed by the Chief Administrator of the courts (see, 22 NYCRR
127.2(b)). Her requests for relief, which were made through informal
letters and a formal motion (see, 22 NYCRR § 127.2(b)), were
unsuccessful.
SNIPPETS:
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
In Matter of Werfel v Agresta (36 NY2d 624), this Court held that an order issued pursuant to
The dispute arises out of services that were rendered by respondent Hillel Bodek, a certified
Bodek had been appointed by the court to provide professional services to indigent defendants
In seven of the eight cases, the court also found "extraordinary circumstances" justifying
The Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan for New York City asked the two Supreme Court
Her requests for relief, which were made through informal letters and a formal motion ), were
Conceding that the challenged orders might technically be appealable by the Director, an
Initially, we note that, with respect to the appealability question, there is no meaningful
Despite the technical appealability of the challenged orders, however, the Appellate Division
Judge Smith and I also vote to affirm, but only under the constraint of Matter of Werfel v
The City of New York was never a party to the payment proceedings and was never afforded any
City, became obligated, pursuant to the judicial orders, to pay the fees out of budgeted New
They in no way affect the criminal proceeding or judgment itself and are entirely collateral
|
