In People v M., the Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed a restitution order against R. M., who had pleaded guilty to criminal mischief in the fourth degree for damaging a City of Beacon police vehicle.
The case originated in Dutchess County, where M. admitted to damaging the patrol car and accepted a plea deal that included three years’ probation and restitution. At a subsequent hearing, the court ordered M. to pay $2,437.65, based on an itemized estimate provided by a veteran auto mechanic with 47 years of experience. The defense challenged the restitution, arguing that because the vehicle had not yet been repaired, the amount was speculative and improper.
But the AT2 disagreed with that argument. Citing long-standing precedent and statutory authority, the court emphasized that restitution is intended to compensate victims for losses caused by criminal conduct—not just expenses already incurred. Under Penal Law § 60.27 and § 65.10, courts may order restitution for actual out-of-pocket losses, and the prosecution bears the burden of proving those losses by a preponderance of the evidence.
In this case, the court found that the prosecution met that burden. The mechanic’s detailed estimate was deemed sufficient to establish the financial impact of the damage. The fact that the police department had not yet paid for repairs did not undermine the validity of the restitution order.
You break it, you pay for it—even if it’s still broken.
# # #
DECISION