People v. Miterko
| Decision Date | 19 September 2000 |
| Citation | 186 Misc.2d 337,717 N.Y.S.2d 843 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff,<BR>v.<BR>THOMAS MITERKO, Defendant. |
186 Misc.2d 337
717 N.Y.S.2d 843
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS MITERKO, Defendant.
September 19, 2000.
Anthony Grandinette for defendant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney of Kings County (Samantha Puro of counsel), for plaintiff.
[186 Misc.2d 338]
OPINION OF THE COURTJOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.
As part of the omnibus motion, defendant moves to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the People violated CPL 170.55 (2) and 170.20 (2) in that the People failed to obtain permission from the Criminal Court to either place the case on the calendar or for permission to present the case to the Grand Jury. Although the motion is to dismiss the entire indictment, the arguments for dismissal are only applicable to counts 2 through 112, inclusive. No arguments are submitted as to why counts 1 and 113 through 115 should be dismissed. To the extent that the motion covers counts 1 and 113 through 115, the motion is denied. The court notes that count 115 states that the criminal trespass occurred on November 6, 2000. That date has not yet arrived. There is obviously a typographical error as to the year. The prosecution is directed to file a written motion to amend the indictment to reflect the appropriate date.
Factual BackgroundBetween July 30, 1999 and November 4, 1999, it is alleged that defendant made numerous (according to the indictment at least 111) telephone calls to the complainant. On November 7, 1999, a misdemeanor complaint was filed, under docket number 99K081972 in Kings County Criminal Court, charging defendant with one count of aggravated harassment. Defendant was arraigned and pleaded "not guilty." An order of protection was issued directing that defendant not have any contact with the complainant.
On December 24, 1999, defendant allegedly violated the order of protection. On December 29, 1999, a felony complaint under docket number 99K094700 was filed in Kings County Criminal Court. The next day defendant was arraigned and pleaded "not guilty."
On February 1, 2000, defendant offered to plead guilty to violating the order of protection. The People moved to reduce the felony complaint to misdemeanor charges. The People's motion was granted. Defendant then pleaded guilty. The court promised the defendant that he would receive three years' probation, counseling and an order of protection would be issued directing defendant not to have any contact with the complainant. After the promise was placed on the record, the People requested that complainant's mother be added to the order of protection. That motion was denied. Thereafter, the following colloquy was placed on the record:
[186 Misc.2d 339]
"THE COURT: Your other case, the offer on the other case, that will be adjourned in contemplation of dismissal?
"MR. PURDO [ADA]: Correct.
"THE COURT: Your other docket is adjourned in contemplation of dismissal.
"Do you understand all those promises."[1]
Thereafter, the court set forth certain conditions, that if the defendant violated them, the court would not be bound by its promise. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Xu
... ... Miterko , 186 Misc. 2d 337, 717 N.Y.S.2d 843 [2000] ; People v. Verardi , 158 Misc. 2d 1039, 602 N.Y.S.2d 318 [1993] ; People v. Clark , 123 Misc. 2d 674, 474 N.Y.S.2d 409 [1984] ; 74 Misc.3d 672 People v. Clark , 120 Misc. 2d 365, 466 N.Y.S.2d 211 [1983] ). But as amended, this statute now requires a ... ...
-
People v. Davenport
... ... establishes a procedure which allows the People to obtain a stay of criminal court proceedings while a case is presented to the Grand Jury, it does not require that they seek such a stay as a condition precedent to presenting the case (see People v Bouyea, 172 Misc.2d 835; see also People v Miterko, 186 Misc.2d 337). Accordingly, there is no basis for dismissal of the indictments ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant committed the crimes of sodomy in ... ...
-
People v. Brennan
... ... Hollender v Trump Vil. Coop., 58 N.Y.2d 420, 424 ... (1983). However, a court may restore an ACD'd case to its ... calendar, before the six-month period elapses, if the People ... prevail upon a restoration motion. People v ... Miterko, 186 Misc.2d 337, 341 (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2000) ... When the People demonstrate dismissal of the underlying ... accusatory instrument would not be in furtherance of justice, ... a court may vacate the ACD order, and restore the case to the ... calendar. People v. Carter, 33 ... ...
-
People v. Brennan
... ... Hollender v Trump Vil. Coop. , 58 NY2d 420, 424 (1983). However, a court may restore an ACD'd case to its calendar, before the six-month period elapses, if the People prevail upon a restoration motion. People v. Miterko , 186 Misc 2d 337, 341 (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 2000). When the People demonstrate dismissal of the underlying accusatory instrument would not be in furtherance of justice, a court may vacate the ACD order, and restore the case to the calendar. People v. Carter , 33 Misc 3d 14, 16 (App. Term 2011). Such ... ...