Akel v. Egan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Akel v. Egan

248 A.D.2d 991, 670 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3058

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 13, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 991 (Akel v. Egan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Akel v. Egan, 248 A.D.2d 991, 670 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3058 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Petition unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner was originally charged by felony complaint and, after indictment, unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the indictment, alleging that he had not received proper notice of the Grand Jury presentation. Petitioner now seeks to prohibit respondents from prosecuting him on the indictment [992]*992based upon the alleged defect in the Grand Jury proceeding (see, CPL 190.50 [5] [a]). Prohibition does not lie in this instance (see, Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 570, n 2). (Original Proceeding Pursuant to CPLR art 78.)

Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Petition unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner was originally charged by felony complaint and, after indictment, unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the indictment, alleging that he had not received proper notice of the Grand Jury presentation. Petitioner now seeks to prohibit respondents from prosecuting him on the indictment [992]*992based upon the alleged defect in the Grand Jury proceeding (see, CPL 190.50 [5] [a]). Prohibition does not lie in this instance (see, Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 570, n 2). (Original Proceeding Pursuant to CPLR art 78.)

Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 991, 670 N.Y.S.2d 129, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/akel-v-egan-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack