People v. Bowden
| Decision Date | 01 July 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 2870–08.,2870–08. |
| Citation | 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 51147,28 Misc.3d 1204,957 N.Y.S.2d 637 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Latisha BOWDEN, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Stanley S. Kaplan, Esq., Assistant District Attorney, Office of Robert T. Johnson, Esq., Bronx.
Angel Frau, Esq., Office of Steven Banks, Esq., Bronx, Attorney for Defendant.
In 2008, Defendant Latisha Bowden was indicted in 2008 on numerous weapons charges after police, in a late night encounter with Defendant on a fire escape, searched a bag in her possession and found a gun and ammunition. In a written decision, dated March 31, 2010, this Court granted Defendant's motion to suppress the gun and ammunition and all evidence obtained thereafter as a result of an illegal search by police of Defendant's bag without a warrant (the “Suppression Decision”). After denying the People's motion to reargue, the Court thereafter dismissed all counts of the indictment against Defendant.
The People now move for an order to unseal the record in this case so that they may pursue an appeal of the Suppression Decision. Defendant has filed no opposition to this motion.
As set forth below, the motion to unseal is granted.
The record of a criminal action or proceeding is to be sealed only when that action terminates in favor of the accused. CPL 160.50(1). Where a case is dismissed against the accused and the People have not appealed that dismissal, the case is considered terminated “in favor of such person.” CPL 160.50(3)(b); People v. Blount, 116 Misc.2d 975, 976 (Sup.Ct., New York Co.1982). Where the People appeal the dismissal, however, the case cannot yet be considered terminated in favor of the accused, and is not entitled to be sealed.1Blount, 116 Misc.2d at 976.
In this case, the People timely filed a notice of appeal. The People had 30 days from service of notice of entry of the Suppression Decision in which to file a notice of appeal. CPL 460.10(1)(a); People v. Washington, 86 N.Y.2d 853, 854 (1995). The People were never served with a notice of entry of this decision and order, nor has notice of entry been filed with the Clerk's Office. The People's Notice of Appeal was filed on May 13, 2010, and although this Court rendered its decision on March 31, 2010, the People's time to appeal had not started to run since there was no notice of entry served upon them by the prevailing party. Washington, 86 N.Y.2d at 854;People v. Lynch, 195 Misc.2d 814, 815 (Sup.Ct., Bronx Co.2003). Therefore, the People's notice of appeal is timely. Washington, 86 N.Y.2d at 854.
The record should not have been sealed by the Clerk's Office until the People's time to appeal had run. People v. Blount, 116 Misc.2d at 976 ( ).
Accordingly, the People's application to unseal the record is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Brown
-
People v. Bundy
...is 30 days from the date of entry. Matter of Blount, 116 Misc. 2d 975, 456 N.Y.S.2d 970 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co.—1982) ; People v. Bowden , 28 Misc. 3d 1204(A), 2010 WL 2651628 (Sup. Ct., Bronx Co.—2010). Thus, prior to a lapse of 30 days from the date of an oral order, the case is not yet seale......
-
Marshall Asnen, Inc. v. Charles Krypell, Inc.
...28 Misc.3d 1204957 N.Y.S.2d 6372010 N.Y. Slip Op. 51146MARSHALL ASNEN, INC., Plaintiffs,v.CHARLES KRYPELL, INC., Defendant.No. 102898/08.Supreme Court, New York County, New York.July 2, RICHARD F. BRAUN, J. This is an action for tortious interference with contract and slander, arising out o......
-
People v. Bundy
...order, which typically is 30 days from the date of entry. Matter of Blount 116 Misc 2d 975 (Sup. Ct., NY Co. - 1982); People v. Bowden, 28 Misc 3d 1204(A) (Sup. Ct., Bronx Co. - 2010). Thus, prior to a lapse of 30 days from the date of an oral order, the case is not yet sealed and the peopl......