People v. Stanback
| Citation | 51 N.Y.S.3d 200,149 A.D.3d 876 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
| Decision Date | 12 April 2017 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., appellant, v. Carl STANBACK, respondent. |
149 A.D.3d 876
51 N.Y.S.3d 200
The PEOPLE, etc., appellant,
v.
Carl STANBACK, respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
April 12, 2017.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Jean M. Joyce of counsel), for appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Anna Pervukhin of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
Appeal by the People, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), dated October 23, 2015, as granted, in the interest of justice, that branch of the defendant's oral motion which was to dismiss count one of the indictment, charging attempted murder in the second degree.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch of the defendant's oral motion which was to dismiss count one of the indictment, charging attempted murder in the second degree, is denied, without prejudice to renewal, that count of the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings
County, for further proceedings consistent herewith before a different Justice.
A motion by a defendant to dismiss an indictment must be made in writing and upon reasonable notice to the People (see CPL 210.45[1] ). Here, the Supreme Court erred in dismissing, in the interest of justice, count one of the indictment, charging attempted murder in the second degree, upon the defendant's oral motion, without a full development of the issues, due consideration of the statutory factors (see CPL 210.40[1] ), or an adequate opportunity for the People to contest the specific grounds asserted for dismissal (see CPL 210.40[1][a]-[j] ; People v. Jack, 117 A.D.2d 753, 753–754, 498 N.Y.S.2d 741 ; People v. Vega, 80 A.D.2d 867, 436 N.Y.S.2d 748 ; People v. Clayton, 41 A.D.2d 204, 206, 342 N.Y.S.2d 106 ). Accordingly, if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Knight
...9th & 10th Jud. Dists. 2015]; 34 Carmody–Wait 2d § 189:176 ). While the court erred in allowing an oral motion (see People v. Stanback, 149 A.D.3d 876, 877, 51 N.Y.S.3d 200 [2017] ; People v. Dunlap, 216 A.D.2d 215, 216–217, 629 N.Y.S.2d 407 [1995] ; People v. Jack, 117 A.D.2d 753, 753–754,......
-
People v. McDowdell
...notice to the People (see CPL 170.30 [1] [g]; [2]; 170.45, 210.45 [1]; People v Key, 45 N.Y.2d 111, 116 [1978]; People v Stanback, 149 A.D.3d 876, 877 [2017]; People v Littles, 188 A.D.2d 255, 256 [1992]; People v Knight, 58 Misc.3d 76, 78 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2017]; Peo......
- Dandridge v. Gonzalez