People v. Gruttola
| Decision Date | 26 December 1972 |
| Citation | 339 N.Y.S.2d 178,72 Misc.2d 295 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Joseph GRUTTOLA, Defendant. |
| Court | New York City Court |
On December 24, the defendant Joseph Gruttola was arraigned upon a felony complaint charging the defendant with the crimes of attempted murder as well as other crimes. The presiding judge fixed bail in the sum of $5,000 secured bond or $500 cash. The defendant was subsequently released on bail. On the following day an application was made before this Court for the issuance of a warrant requiring defendant's appearance for a review of said bail. Following argument by the Assistant District Attorney and by an attorney designated by this Court to represent the defendant upon said motion (neither the defendant nor his attorney of record being present), this Court exonerated bail and issued a warrant for the production of defendant forthwith for a review of the terms of his release. The basis of my jurisdiction to issue such orders is as follows.
Section 530.60 of the Criminal Procedure Law provides that 'Whenever in the course of a criminal action or proceeding a defendant is at liberty as a result of an order of recognizance or bail issued pursuant to this article, and the court considers it necessary to review such order, it may, and by a bench warrant if necessary, require the defendant to appear before the court.' Section 550.10 of the C.P.L. also provides that the Court may secure the attendance of a defendant by the issuance of a bench warrant. Clearly the issuance of such warrant may not be an arbitrary decision by a judge of equal authority and should be based upon new facts then adduced (Cf. People ex rel. Rupoli v. McDonnell, 277 App.Div. 74, 98 N.Y.S.2d 182 (2nd Dept. 1950)). As was stated in People ex rel. Manceri v. Doherty, Sup., 192 N.Y.S.2d 140, 142:
While judges of concurrent jurisdiction may not overrule each other, it is wholly within their judicial power and duty to make new orders in ambulatory interlocutory situations where new matter is presented to them in the regular course of their judicial duties requiring them to so act.
That Court went on to say that judges of concurrent jurisdiction may increase or lower bail ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Forman
...on the basis of new facts adduced. People ex rel. Manceri v. Doherty, 192 N.Y.S.2d 140, 142 (1959); People v. Gruttola, 72 Misc.2d 295, 339 N.Y.S.2d 178 (Crim.Ct., N.Y.Co., 1972). To the extent the Stipulation between the People and defendant provided for nunc pro tunc review of the June 24......
-
People v. Di Maria
...pending charge. It was a change of circumstances justifying a review of the preexisting bail conditions. (See, e.g., People v. Gruttola, 72 Misc.2d 295, 339 N.Y.S.2d 178 Therefore, a bench warrant properly issued, pursuant to a proceeding to review the defendant's bail. (CPL 530.60, subd. W......
-
People v. Mohammed
...N.Y.S.2d 182 (2d Dept.1950); People ex rel. Manceri v. Doherty, 192 N.Y.S.2d 140; People v. Torres, supra; People v. Gruttola, 72 Misc.2d 295, 339 N.Y.S.2d 178 (Crim.Ct.N.Y.City 1972). If the bail order in ACA 360 on August 19, 1996, continuing the bail fixed by criminal court was not a dis......
-
People v. Solomon
...is within their judicial power or jurisdiction to make new orders in proper cases. A proper case was found to exist in People v. Gruttola, 72 Misc.2d 295, 339 N.Y.S.2d 178. In Gruttola, the Criminal Court, County of New York stated that judges may make new orders ". . . in ambulatory interl......
-
9.31 - 7. Possible Increase In Bail
...entry of a plea increases the possibility that bail may be increased.--------Notes:[1710] . CPL § 530.60(1). See People v. Gruttola, 72 Misc. 2d 295, 335 N.Y.S.2d 178 (Crim. Ct., N.Y. Co....