People ex rel. Anna Boksenbaum, on behalf of Edwin Henao v. Lynelle Maginley-Liddie
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal procedure—habeas corpus challenging pretrial detention and securing reasonable bail with conditions under CPL 510.40(4)(c)-(d) [authorizes electronic monitoring by a qualified entity and provides reporting/violation procedures].
Henao remained incarcerated pretrial under Queens County Indictment No. 74034/2025; release on recognizance or reasonable bail was not granted.
The pretrial remand/no-bail determination was modified—bail was set with enforceable conditions and alternatives.
The court sustained the writ and determined that a structured bail package—monetary alternatives plus electronic monitoring, home confinement, passport surrender, and an extradition waiver—would reasonably assure Henao’s return to court consistent with CPL 510.40(4)(c)-(d).
Background
In a habeas corpus proceeding, the People ex rel. Anna Boksenbaum sought Edwin Henao’s release on his own recognizance or, alternatively, the setting of reasonable bail on Queens County Indictment No. 74034/2025. The Appellate Division considered the request and the conditions available under the Criminal Procedure Law for supervised pretrial release.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County, left Henao incarcerated pretrial, without granting release on recognizance or setting reasonable bail on the indictment.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division sustained the writ to the extent of setting bail at $250,000 (insurance company bond), or $250,000 (partially secured bond with 10% down), or $100,000 (cash), conditioned on: electronic monitoring by a qualified entity with violation reporting to the Queens County District Attorney pursuant to CPL 510.40(4)(c)-(d); home confinement with limited exceptions (employment, attorney, medical, court) and direct travel; surrender of all passports or an affidavit of non-possession and no application for new/replacement passports; and an affidavit agreeing to waive opposition to extradition if he leaves the jurisdiction. Upon proof of compliance, the warden is directed to immediately release Henao.
Legal Significance
The decision confirms the Appellate Division’s authority on a habeas corpus application to impose a comprehensive bail package, including electronic monitoring and stringent travel/passport restrictions under CPL 510.40(4)(c)-(d) [authorizes electronic monitoring by a qualified entity and provides reporting/violation procedures]. It illustrates acceptable bail alternatives (insurance company bond, partially secured bond with 10% down, or cash) and the use of affidavits for passport control and extradition waiver to mitigate flight risk.
On habeas review, the Appellate Division may replace pretrial remand with a structured bail package combining monetary options and robust supervision—electronic monitoring, home confinement, passport controls, and an extradition waiver—to reasonably assure court attendance.