Staff Reports
New York DA Alvin Bragg faced a scathing response from the New York Supreme Court for his overzealous prosecution of individuals who bought and used fake COVID vaccine cards during the pandemic. Bragg went all out in going after New Yorkers who violated the city’s vaccine mandate and tried to pass off counterfeit vaccination cards to keep their jobs. While most of the accused pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges, two employees decided to challenge the allegations.
In a surprising turn of events, the New York State Supreme Court dismissed the felony charges brought against the two defendants, referred to as J.O. and R.V. in court documents. Justice Brendan T. Lantry, in the court’s ruling, questioned Bragg’s priorities, noting that it was peculiar for him to aggressively pursue vaccine card fraud cases while being lenient towards suspects accused of serious crimes like murder, theft, and drug charges.
NY Supreme Court Slams Anti-Trump DA for Enforcing Harsh Vaccine Card Punishment on Residents via @WestJournalism https://t.co/QOrVoe71cA
— cindy horswell (@chorswell) February 8, 2024
Justice Lantry further emphasized that the charges against J.O. and R.V., nursing student and city Department of Environmental Protection employee respectively, were far from being serious offenses. He pointed out that criminal possession of a forged instrument is not among the most severe crimes in the New York Penal Law. Moreover, the defendants’ actions of purchasing fake vaccination cards to comply with employment and educational requirements did not warrant the same level of scrutiny as the violent and non-violent serious felony offenses often tried in the Supreme Court.
Justice Lantry also highlighted the astonishing fact that Bragg regularly dismisses much more serious charges or entire indictments on a nearly daily basis, either to avoid the consequences of New York’s sentencing statutes or immigration consequences. The court’s ruling was welcomed by Republican City Council Minority Leader Joseph Borelli of Staten Island, who criticized Bragg for prosecuting a frightened woman who did not even use the fake card, while violent criminals walked free. The ruling further exposed Bragg’s office for its alleged neglect of serious crimes, as demonstrated by the recent release of illegal immigrants seen attacking police officers in New York City.
The New York Supreme Court’s decision raises questions about Bragg’s prosecutorial priorities and could impact the public’s perception of his office’s effectiveness in dealing with real criminal threats. As the court voiced its concerns, it also brought attention to the wider issue of Bragg’s approach to serious crimes and how it might affect the safety and well-being of New Yorkers.
