People v. Vega
| Decision Date | 09 March 1981 |
| Citation | 436 N.Y.S.2d 748,80 A.D.2d 867 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Appellant, v. Joanne VEGA, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jane S. Meyers, Brooklyn, of counsel, Bobbi C. Sternheim, New York City, on brief), for appellant.
William E. Hellerstein, New York City (Howard B. Comet, Mineola, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J. P., and COHALAN, O'CONNOR and WEINSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the People, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 25, 1980, as dismissed the defendant's indictment on the ground that the evidence before the Grand Jury was insufficient.
Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, indictment reinstated and case remitted to Criminal Term for further proceedings consistent herewith.
The defendant brought an omnibus motion seeking dismissal of her indictment and suppression of physical evidence and statements. That part of the motion which was to dismiss the indictment was made pursuant to CPL 210.20 (subd. 1, par. (c)), alleging the Grand Jury presentation was incomplete and therefore defective. Criminal Term, following a hearing, ordered the defendant's statements and physical evidence suppressed, and upon its own motion, reviewed the Grand Jury minutes and dismissed the indictment pursuant to CPL 210.20 (subd. 1, par. (b)), on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. No appeal is taken by the People from that part of the order which granted the motion to suppress.
A motion to dismiss an indictment must be made in writing and upon reasonable notice to the People (CPL 210.45, subd. 1; People v. Kovzelove, 72 A.D.2d 608, 421 N.Y.S.2d 114; People v. Boynton, 67 A.D.2d 982, 413 N.Y.S.2d 431; People v. Pichkur, 52 A.D.2d 852, 382 N.Y.S.2d 565). A hearing is required in order for there to be a full development of the issues and an adequate opportunity for the People to contest the specific grounds asserted for dismissal (People v. Clayton, 41 A.D.2d 204, 206, 342 N.Y.S.2d 106; People v. Pichkur, supra).
The procedural requirements of CPL 210.45 apply with equal force to a court which is considering the dismissal of an indictment upon its own motion (People v. Boynton, supra; People v. Pichkur, supra). The failure of Criminal Term in the instant case to comply with the statutory mandates requires a reversal. It should be noted that the court, sua sponte, dismissed the indictment on grounds which had not been asserted by the defendant (People...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brewster
...which may be competent when placed before the Grand Jury but which are suppressed after the indictment (see, e.g., People v. Vega, 80 A.D.2d 867, 436 N.Y.S.2d 748; People v. Mauceri, 74 A.D.2d 833, 425 N.Y.S.2d 346). Photographic identification evidence is incompetent from the outset, howev......
-
People v. Melendez
...motion for grand jury inspection. Absent such written motion the court cannot consider dismissal as to the co-defendant (People v. Vega, 80 A.D.2d 867, 436 N.Y.S.2d 748; People v. Fanelli, 92 A.D.2d 573, 459 N.Y.S.2d 329).2 Whether today a "majority of jurisdictions" adopt this view is doub......
-
People v. Sullivan
...grounds asserted for dismissal' " ( see, People v. Jack, 117 A.D.2d 753, 753-754, 498 N.Y.S.2d 741, quoting from People v. Vega, 80 A.D.2d 867, 436 N.Y.S.2d 748; see also, People v. Ramos, 94 A.D.2d 708, 462 N.Y.S.2d Dismissal in the interest of justice was improper for the additional reaso......
-
People v. Brewster
...attorneys to file papers relative to the instant motion. The District Attorney was given time to respond. People v. Vega, 80 A.D.2d 867, 436 N.Y.S.2d 748 (2d Dept., 1981); People v. Kovzelove, 72 A.D.2d 608, 421 N.Y.S.2d 114 (2d Dept. A reading of the Grand Jury minutes indicates that each ......