People v. Beauvais
| Decision Date | 22 December 1983 |
| Citation | 470 N.Y.S.2d 887,98 A.D.2d 897 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Russell BEAUVAIS, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Richard J. Brickwedde, Liverpool, for appellant.
George H. Wiltsie, Cortland, for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and CASEY, YESAWICH, WEISS and LEVINE, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Cortland County, entered December 1, 1982, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment.
On October 15, 1981, defendant was charged in the local court of the Town of Cuyler, Cortland County, by an environmental conservation officer with violating section 11-0931 (subd. 2) () and section 11-0901 (subd. 4, par. b, cl. [2] ) () of the ECL. The charges were adjourned for approximately one month, at which time the conservation officer proposed a civil compromise with a penalty of $500. Defendant accepted, but since he did not have the $500, defendant requested a continuance to raise the money. After paying $200, defendant was given another extension to pay the balance. When defendant failed to do so, the Cuyler Town Justice refused to approve the compromise and the defense attorney moved to have the misdemeanor charges prosecuted by indictment. On the return date, the District Attorney permitted the regional attorney for the Department of Environmental Conservation to present the case to the Cortland County Grand Jury, which returned a two-count indictment.
On August 17, 1982, defendant moved to dismiss the indictment because the regional attorney was not a proper party to present the case and appear before the Grand Jury. Although defendant was aware of these events and did not object thereto, County Court dismissed the indictment on the ground that such presentation by a regional attorney for the Department of Environmental Conservation rendered the indictment invalid. County Court also exercised its discretion and authorized the District Attorney to resubmit the charges to a new Grand Jury (see CPL 210.20, subd. 4; People v. DiFalco, 44 N.Y.2d 482, 406 N.Y.S.2d 279, 377 N.E.2d 732).
We agree with the action taken by County Court. A regional attorney for the Department of Environmental Conservation is not a proper party to present a case to the Grand Jury. Without the approval or authorization of the County Legislature, any attempt by the District Attorney...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haggerty v. Himelein
...Falco, supra, at 486-488, 406 N.Y.S.2d 279, 377 N.E.2d 732; People v. Minet, 296 N.Y. 315, 322-323, 73 N.E.2d 529; People v. Beauvais, 98 A.D.2d 897, 897-898, 470 N.Y.S.2d 887; People v. Hopkins, 182 Misc. 313, 315-316, 47 N.Y.S.2d 222, supra ). It is questionable whether such defect in the......
-
People v. Wilkins
... ... Beauvais, 98 A.D.2d 897, 470 N.Y.S.2d 887), the presentation of evidence by an unauthorized prosecutor (see, People v. Di Falco, 44 N.Y.2d 482, 406 N.Y.S.2d 279, 377 N.E.2d 732), a violation of the requirement of secrecy (see, CPL 190.25), or proceeding in the presence of fewer than 16 grand jurors (see, ... ...
-
People v. Carter
...482, 406 N.Y.S.2d 279, 377 N.E.2d 732, supra, People v. Dunbar, 53 N.Y.2d 868, 440 N.Y.S.2d 613, 423 N.E.2d 36 and People v. Beauvais, 98 A.D.2d 897, 470 N.Y.S.2d 887. Their reliance on these cases is In People v. Di Falco (supra), in holding that the Special Prosecutor was unauthorized to ......
-
People v. Munoz, SANCHEZ-MEDIN
...279, 377 N.E.2d 732], nor is a regional attorney for the Department of Environmental Conservation [ (People v. Beauvais, 98 A.D.2d 897, 898, 470 N.Y.S.2d 887 (3rd Dept.1983) Here, however, Penofsky was appointed and employed by the office of the District Attorney, which does have jurisdicti......