PL 260.10: Endangering the Welfare of a Child in New York

PL 260.10 requires no harm to any child. It is a risk crime, not a result crime — the People must prove your conduct was likely to be injurious, and that you knew it. Around 160 of these cases a year run through Nassau and Suffolk County District Court, most of them attached to another charge. If you have been charged, call Hochhauser Criminal & DWI Defense at 516-939-1529.

PL 260.10 penalties

The criminal exposure is not what does the damage here. The collateral consequences are — a child protective investigation, an order of protection that can bar you from your own home and children, and a report that follows you through employment in education, healthcare and childcare.

What PL 260.10(1) requires

A person is guilty when he or she knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old.

Read those two phrases together, because the defense sits between them. The People do not have to prove the child was hurt, frightened, or even aware of what happened. What they must prove is that the conduct was likely to be injurious — meaning harm was a probable consequence, not merely a conceivable one — and that you were aware you were acting in that manner.

That awareness requirement is not a formality. Negligent parenting, poor judgment and unconventional childrearing are not this crime. Awareness of a likelihood of injury is.

Note also the age line. Subdivision one applies to a child under seventeen. Subdivision two, a separate theory about failing to exercise reasonable diligence over a child, uses eighteen. The mismatch is real and occasionally dispositive.

Why this charge appears so often

PL 260.10 is very rarely the only count. It gets added on when a child was present for something else — a DWI arrest with a child in the car, a domestic incident a child witnessed, drugs or a firearm in a home where children live, a child left alone or in a vehicle.

That pattern creates its own defense. Where endangerment is a tack-on to a primary charge, defeating or suppressing the primary charge usually takes this count with it.

Where the underlying allegation is impaired driving with a child under sixteen in the vehicle, be aware that Leandra’s Law makes that a Class E felony in its own right — see our page on Leandra’s Law.

Defenses to a PL 260.10 charge

• The conduct was not “likely” to be injurious. The strongest attack, and the one the statute’s own wording invites. A speculative chain of events does not satisfy the element, and courts have dismissed where the risk was remote or the child was never actually exposed to it.
• You did not know. You were unaware a child was present, unaware the firearm was accessible, unaware of what another adult in the home was doing.
• The child’s presence alone is not enough. The conduct has to be likely injurious to that child. A child somewhere in a house during other misconduct does not automatically establish the element.
• Age. Subdivision one reaches only children under seventeen.
• Parental discretion. Lawful childrearing choices and reasonable discipline are not this crime.
• Facial insufficiency. These counts are frequently pleaded in conclusory language that tracks the statute without alleging facts showing likelihood of injury — which makes a motion to dismiss the fastest route out in a meaningful number of cases.

Where these cases are heard on Long Island

The related child protective proceeding runs in Family Court. We handle both across Nassau County and Suffolk County. See also domestic violence charges.

PL 260.10 frequently asked questions

My child was not hurt at all.

That does not defeat the charge, because harm is not an element. It does go to whether the conduct was likely to be injurious, which is an element and is where the case should be fought.

Will child protective services get involved?

Usually, and often before the criminal case moves at all. The two proceedings affect each other and statements in one can surface in the other, so they need to be handled together.

Is endangering the welfare of a child a felony?

No, PL 260.10 is a Class A misdemeanor. Related conduct can be charged more seriously, including as a felony under Leandra’s Law where a child was in a vehicle during a DWI.

Can this be reduced or dismissed?

Yes. Where the count is a tack-on and the primary charge falls, this one usually falls with it. Where the accusatory instrument is conclusory, a facial insufficiency motion is often the fastest path.

Speak with a Long Island defense lawyer

Richard Hochhauser defends endangerment cases in Nassau and Suffolk County alongside the child protective proceedings that accompany them. What is at stake in these cases is usually not the sentence — it is access to your own children, and that has to be protected from the first appearance.

This page provides general information about PL 260.10 in New York and is not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. Contacting our firm does not create an attorney-client relationship.