Burse v. Bristol

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burse v. Bristol

203 A.D.2d 962, 612 N.Y.S.2d 990

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

DecidedApril 15, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 962 (Burse v. Bristol) 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

Burse v. Bristol, 203 A.D.2d 962, 612 N.Y.S.2d 990 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Petition unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel County Court to hold a hearing on her pre-indictment motion to suppress evidence. Although CPL 710.50 provides that a defendant who has been held by a local criminal court for action by a Grand Jury may make a suppression motion in the superior court that impaneled or will impanel such Grand Jury, the statute does not mandate that a suppression hearing be held prior to indictment. Because petitioner has not demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief she seeks, mandamus does not lie (see, Matter of Scherbyn v Wayne-Finger Lakes Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 77 NY2d 753, 757; Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16-17; Matter of Hamptons Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v Moore, 52 NY2d 88, 97). (Original Article 78 Proceeding.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ. (Filed Mar. 24, 1994.)

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

—Petition unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel County Court to hold a hearing on her pre-indictment motion to suppress evidence. Although CPL 710.50 provides that a defendant who has been held by a local criminal court for action by a Grand Jury may make a suppression motion in the superior court that impaneled or will impanel such Grand Jury, the statute does not mandate that a suppression hearing be held prior to indictment. Because petitioner has not demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief she seeks, mandamus does not lie (see, Matter of Scherbyn v Wayne-Finger Lakes Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 77 NY2d 753, 757; Matter of Legal Aid Socy. v Scheinman, 53 NY2d 12, 16-17; Matter of Hamptons Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v Moore, 52 NY2d 88, 97). (Original Article 78 Proceeding.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Davis, JJ. (Filed Mar. 24, 1994.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 962, 612 N.Y.S.2d 990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burse-v-bristol-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack