People v. Codina
| Decision Date | 17 September 2002 |
| Citation | 297 A.D.2d 539,747 N.Y.S.2d 209 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>ANGIE CODINA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Defendant was charged in three indictments with crimes ranging from grand larceny to the unlicensed practice of law on allegations that she operated a law firm without being admitted to the New York Bar and failed to provide services after taking money from her client. At trial, defendant conceded that she was not admitted to practice law in New York or in any other state of the United States and that although she had been admitted as a barrister and solicitor in Ontario, Canada, she had been suspended after she was convicted in Ontario in 1997 of fraud and falsification of books. In 1996, defendant's firm, Codina Partners International, opened an office in New York to handle immigration matters with a staff of 16, including four attorneys licensed in this state. Former clients testified that they had personal contact with defendant, entered into retainer agreements with her, believed she was a licensed attorney and would not have hired her had they known she was not admitted in New York. Most of those clients testified they never received the services they paid for and did not receive refunds. Several clients had reported defendant to the police, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee, and, when told that defendant was not an attorney, to the New York Attorney General's office.
Subsequently, the Attorney General executed a search warrant and seized defendant's office files on March 20, 1998. Executive Law § 63 (3) grants the Attorney General authority to investigate the alleged commission of any indictable offense and to prosecute, but only upon the request of certain specified executive branch officers "or the head of any other department, authority, division or agency of the state." The Attorney General obtained a referral to investigate defendant's activities from the Superintendent of the New York State Police on February 4, 1999. Thereafter, the Attorney General presented evidence to the grand jury.
Defendant contends that the Attorney General did not have the power to conduct a criminal investigation prior to obtaining the statutory referral and that, consequently, any evidence seized pursuant to a search should have been inadmissible at her trial. We agree. Defendant's failure to raise jurisdictional contentions before the Supreme Court does not preclude review since jurisdictional defects may not be waived (see People v...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Rogers
...investigation and informed the investigator that a referral pursuant to Executive Law § 63(3) was required (see People v. Codina, 297 A.D.2d 539, 541, 747 N.Y.S.2d 209 [2002], lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 767, 752 N.Y.S.2d 7, 781 N.E.2d 919 [2002] ; Matter of L & S Hosp. & Inst. Supplies Co. v. Hyne......
-
Makhani v. Kiesel
...824 N.Y.S.2d 771, 858 N.E.2d 318; People v. Leahy, 72 N.Y.2d 510, 534 N.Y.S.2d 658, 531 N.E.2d 290 [1988] ; cf. People v. Codina, 297 A.D.2d 539, 747 N.Y.S.2d 209 [1st Dept. 2002] ).In light of our conclusion that the Unified Court System cannot make an Executive Law § 63(3) referral to the......
-
People v. Griffin
...§ 63(3) was not forfeited by his pleas of guilty nor is it precluded by his valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v. Codina, 297 A.D.2d 539, 539, 747 N.Y.S.2d 209 ). Nevertheless, the defendant's failure to raise this issue in the Supreme Court precludes review of his contention o......
-
U.S. v. Rosa
... ... type gun" that was not recovered and therefore would not be submitted as physical evidence at trial as a "[w]eapon [] used in the crime." People v. Rosa, Indictment No. 91-239-02, Consent Order dated Mar. 28, 1991 ("Bill of Particulars"), at 5. The Bill of Particulars set forth the "substance ... ...