People v. Diaz

• Citation: 201 A.D.2d 580,607 N.Y.S.2d 959
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Santos DIAZ, Edilberto Burgos, and Modoto Salas, Respondents.
• Decision Date: 14 February 1994
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 959

607 N.Y.S.2d 959

201 A.D.2d 580

The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Santos DIAZ, Edilberto Burgos, and Modoto Salas, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

Feb. 14, 1994.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. Mackechnie, Leonard Joblove and Chi Mo, of counsel), for appellant.

Andreadis & Natsios, Brooklyn (Kleon C. Andreadis, of counsel), for respondent Santos Diaz.

Ilene H. Cohen, Roslyn, for respondent Edilberto Burgos.

Cheryl Charles Duval, Brooklyn, for respondent Modoto Salas.

Before MANGANO, P.J., and BALLETTA, FRIEDMANN and FLORIO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated July 6, 1992, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the evidence before the Grand Jury was not legally sufficient.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, the defendants' motion is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

It is well-settled that the court may only grant a motion to dismiss the indictment where "[t]he evidence before the grand jury was not legally sufficient to establish the offense charged or any lesser included offense" (CPL 210.20[1][b]; People v. Deitsch, 97 A.D.2d 327, 328, 470 N.Y.S.2d 158; People v. Leichtweis, 59 A.D.2d 383, 387, 399 N.Y.S.2d 439). The burden is on the defendant to make a clear showing of legal insufficiency (see, People v. Adorno, 112 A.D.2d 308, 309, 491 N.Y.S.2d 755), and the court must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Warner-Lambert Co. Am. Chicle Div., 51 N.Y.2d 295, 299, 434 N.Y.S.2d 159, 414 N.E.2d 660, cert. denied 450 U.S. 1031, 101 S.Ct. 1742, 68 L.Ed.2d 227). Upon a motion to dismiss for legal insufficiency it must only be shown that the People presented a prima facie case (see, People v. Flores, 122 A.D.2d 806, 505 N.Y.S.2d 687). Questions as to the quality or weight of the proof are deferred and the evidence may be legally sufficient even if it does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103, 115, 512 N.Y.S.2d 652, 504 N.E.2d 1079).

Bearing these principles in mind, we find that the defendants failed to make a clear showing that the evidence presented to the Grand Jury, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was legally...