People v. Dorian
| Decision Date | 11 March 1963 |
| Citation | 18 A.D.2d 1008,238 N.Y.S.2d 633 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. John T. DORIAN, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Frank D. O'Connor, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens, for appellant. Benj. J. Jacobson, Long Island City, of counsel. Arthur W. Lonschein, Kew Gardens, for respondent.
Before BELDOCK, P. J., and UGHETTA, BRENNAN, HILL and HOPKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the People from an order of the former County Court, Queens County, entered March 7, 1962, which granted defendant's motion and dismissed an indictment charging the defendant with burglary in the third degree (two counts) and grand larceny in the first degree (two counts).
Order reversed on the law and the facts, motion denied, and indictment reinstated.
On defendant's motion, a prior indictment returned February 6, 1961, charging the defendant with the identical crimes, was dismissed by the court because it was based upon insufficient evidence before the Grand Jury. In the court's opinion, but not in its order of dismissal, the court stated that said indictment was dismissed 'with leave to the District Attorney to resubmit to the Grand Jury, if he deems it advisable, on or before June 30, 1961.'
The District Attorney did not resubmit the case to the Grand Jury until December 1961. On December 14, 1961 the Grand Jury returned a new indictment (the subject to this appeal) against defendant; on January 9, 1962 the defendant was arraigned thereon, pleading not guilty; and on February 19, 1962 he moved to dismiss the new indictment on the grounds: (1) 'that it was improperly returned by the Grand Jury'; and (2) that it 'denies the defendant his right to a speedy trial.' The order appealed from resulted.
In our opinion, where, as here, an indictment is dismissed because of the insufficiency or illegality of the evidence before the Grand Jury, no order is necessary for resubmission of the charges to another Grand Jury (People v. Lenoci, 13 Misc.2d 789, 178 N.Y.S.2d 332; People v. Raymo, 32 Misc.2d 534, 223 N.Y.S.2d 1014; People v. Benson, 208 Misc. 138, 143 N.Y.S.2d 563; cf. People v. Rodriguez, 11 N.Y.2d 279, 229 N.Y.S.2d 353, 183 N.E.2d 651; People v. Leyra, 1 N.Y.2d 199, 202, 151 N.Y.S.2d 658, 659, 134 N.E.2d 475, 476; People v. Rosenthal, 197 N.Y. 394, 400-401, 90 N.E. 991, 994, 46 L.R.A., N.S., 31). The directive as to resubmission in the present case was therefore a nullity (cf. People ex rel. Grossman v. Warden, 172 Misc. 185, 14 N.Y.S.2d 245; People v. Roth, 128 Misc. 550, 220 N.Y.S. 167); it did not impair the validity of the new indictment returned by the Grand Jury (cf. People v. Stern, 3 N.Y.2d 658, 662-663, 171 N.Y.S.2d 265, 267-269, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Laskowski
... ... Dorian, 18 A.D.2d 1008, 238 N.Y.S.2d 633, 635, held: ... 'Nor, in our opinion, did the procuring of the new indictment violate defendant's right to a speedy trial (People v. Rodriguez, 11 N.Y.2d 279, 285, 229 N.Y.S.2d 353, 356, 183 N.E.2d 651, 653, supra). Inasmuch as there was no showing that the ... ...
-
People v. Bedjanzaden
... ... Ryan, 11 A.D.2d 155, 204 N.Y.S.2d 1; People v. Dorian, 18 A.D.2d 1008, 238 N.Y.S.2d 633; People ex rel. Coyle v. Truesdell, 259 App.Div. 282, 18 N.Y.S.2d 947; People v. Lenoci, 13 Misc.2d 789, 178 N.Y.S.2d 332; People v. Mollica, 25 Misc.2d 877, 204 N.Y.S.2d 514; People v. Raymo, 32 Misc.2d 534, 223 N.Y.S.2d 1014; People v. Colletti, 42 Misc.2d 158, ... ...
-
People v. Colletti
... ... I will withhold signing an order on this determination for a period of 15 days to afford the District Attorney an opportunity to present the case to another grand jury, leave to do which is hereby granted although he has such right even ... without leave of this Court (People v. Dorian, 18 App.Div.2d 1008, 238 N.Y.S .2d 633) ... [42 Misc.2d 161] In fairness to the District Attorney it should be pointed out that the procedure followed by him in making his proof before the grand jury was in complete accord with the law as it was understood to be prior to the ... ...
- Morris v. Morris