QUEENS, N.Y. — A man who had already posted bail in a newer petit larceny case appeared in Queens Criminal Court on Monday still bound by a supervised release order in an older case that he said he did not know remained in effect. Deputy Public Defender Amanda Marie Watson asked the court to give him time to re-engage with supervision rather than penalize him for falling out of compliance with a condition he said he did not realize was still in place.
The accused faces two open misdemeanor matters in Queens Criminal Court. In the older case, he is charged with petit larceny. In the newer case, he is charged with petit larceny and fifth-degree criminal possession of stolen property. Both cases carry temporary orders of protection.
Court records show the accused was first arraigned in the older case on Feb. 4 before Judge Lana Schlesinger. He pleaded not guilty and was released on non-monetary conditions, which included supervised release rather than money bail. The case was later adjourned before Judge Glenda M. Hernandez in April.
The newer case was arraigned May 6 before Judge Indira D. Khan, a day after it had been rescheduled. The accused again pleaded not guilty. Judge Khan set bail at $1,500 cash, a $3,000 insured bond or a $3,000 partially secured surety bond, and court records show the accused posted bail.
By Monday, both cases had been brought onto the same calendar. According to court notes, the accused had satisfied the bail obligation he understood he owed in the newer case but had not realized the older case still required him to remain under supervised release. It was that lapse in supervision, not any new allegation, that placed him at risk before the court Monday.
DPD Watson highlighted this distinction, emphasizing that it mattered because the two cases carried different types of release conditions. The newer case required the accused to post money bail, which he did. The older case required him to remain engaged with a supervision program, an obligation he said he did not know was still in effect while he focused on the case that required a cash payment.
DPD Watson asked the court for additional time so the accused could re-engage with the supervision tied to the older case rather than face consequences for falling out of compliance with a condition he said he had not understood remained in effect.
The court granted DPD Watson’s request for additional time. Both cases, calendared together Monday in Part AP2, were adjourned to Aug. 21 at 9 a.m., giving the accused an opportunity to re-engage with the supervision he said he had not known was still in place.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
