Cutrone v. Kelly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cutrone v. Kelly

39 A.D.2d 725, 332 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4668

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

DecidedMay 8, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 725 (Cutrone v. Kelly) 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

Cutrone v. Kelly, 39 A.D.2d 725, 332 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4668 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR to prohibit respondents from proceeding with the prosecution of indictment No. 32705 returned by a Special Grand Jury of Nassau County against petitioner, to stay the trial of the indictment and to dismiss the indictment. The petition is in all respects [726]*726denied and the proceeding is dismissed, with $50 costs. In our opinion the Grand Jury had the power to return the indictment and the County Court of Nassau County has jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the indictment (cf. People v. Stern, 3 N Y 2d 658, 663). Moreover, it appears that this application is barred by CPLR 217. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR to prohibit respondents from proceeding with the prosecution of indictment No. 32705 returned by a Special Grand Jury of Nassau County against petitioner, to stay the trial of the indictment and to dismiss the indictment. The petition is in all respects [726]*726denied and the proceeding is dismissed, with $50 costs. In our opinion the Grand Jury had the power to return the indictment and the County Court of Nassau County has jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the indictment (cf. People v. Stern, 3 N Y 2d 658, 663). Moreover, it appears that this application is barred by CPLR 217. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 725, 332 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cutrone-v-kelly-nyappdiv-1972.