People v. Sherman, 2006-02075.
| Decision Date | 19 December 2006 |
| Docket Number | 2006-02075. |
| Citation | 35 A.D.3d 768,825 N.Y.S.2d 770,2006 NY Slip Op 09654 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BENJAMIN SHERMAN, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, the motion is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings on the indictment.
"The discretionary authority to dismiss an indictment in furtherance of justice [pursuant to CPL 210.40] should be `exercised sparingly' and only in `those rare cases where there is a "compelling factor" which clearly demonstrates that prosecution of the indictment would be an injustice'" (People v Ward, 300 AD2d 418 [2002], quoting People v Flemming, 291 AD2d 506 [2002], quoting CPL 210.40 [1]). This is not one of those "rare" cases.
Although the defendant was diagnosed in 2002 with a serious medical condition, there is no evidence that his status has significantly deteriorated, and his survival prognosis is unclear. His condition does not constitute a "compelling factor" (CPL 210.40 [1]) which, by itself or in conjunction with all of the other circumstances of this case, warranted "the extraordinary remedy of dismissal of the indictment in the furtherance of justice" (People v Scott, 12 AD3d 383 [2004], quoting People v Moye, 302 Ad2d 610, 611 [2003]). We also note that the defendant has an extensive criminal record (see People v Moye, supra).
Accordingly, giving due consideration to all of the circumstances of this case, as well as the criteria set forth in CPL 210.40, we conclude that the defendant failed to establish the existence of any "compelling factor" which justified dismissal of the indictment pursuant to CPL 210.40 (see People v McAlister, 280 AD2d 556 [2001]; People v Tavares, 273 AD2d 707 [2000]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Pesola
...799 [2d Dept. 2007] ; see also People v. Belge, 41 N.Y.2d 60, 62–63, 390 N.Y.S.2d 867, 359 N.E.2d 377 [1976]; People v. Sherman, 35 A.D.3d 768, 825 N.Y.S.2d 770 [2d Dept. 2006] ). A motion to dismiss in the interest of justice should not be used as a substitute for a trial or when the motio......
-
People v. Melendez
...in order to determine whether any "compelling factor" which justifies dismissal exists. Holtzman v Goldman, 71 N.Y.2d 564 (1988); People v Sherman, supra; People v McAlister, A.D.2d 556 (2nd Dept 2001), app den 96 N.Y.2d 803 (2001) . In so doing, the court must conduct "a sensitive balancin......
-
People v. Claudia Dowling, Inc.
...constituted an injustice (see CPL 170.40[1] ; People v. Candelaria, 50 A.D.3d 913, 855 N.Y.S.2d 259 [2008] ; People v. Sherman, 35 A.D.3d 768, 825 N.Y.S.2d 770 [2006] ; People v. Clayton, 41 A.D.2d 204, 342 N.Y.S.2d 106 [1973] ). For the foregoing reasons, we find no basis to disturb each d......
-
People v. Sherman
...N.E.2d 670 8 N.Y.3d 990 PEOPLE v. SHERMAN. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. May 18, 2007. Appeal from the 2d Dept.: 35 A.D.3d 768, 825 N.Y.S.2d 770 Application for leave to criminal appeal Withdrawn. (Read, J.) ...