District Attroney v. Angelo G.

346 N.E.2d 819, 38 N.Y.2d 923, 382 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2364
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 26, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by43 cases

This text of 346 N.E.2d 819 (District Attroney v. Angelo G.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
District Attroney v. Angelo G., 346 N.E.2d 819, 38 N.Y.2d 923, 382 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2364 (N.Y. 1976).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In Alphonso C, on application of the District Attorney of New York County, Supreme Court directed the respondent to appear in a lineup to be held at the New York County District Attorney’s office. In Angelo G., on similar application by the District Attorney of Kings County, Supreme Court directed each of the appellants to provide a handwriting exemplar at the office of the Kings County District Attorney. No criminal action had been commenced against any of the individuals to whom the Supreme Court orders were addressed nor in either case was it claimed that the discovery was incident to any other pending criminal action or to proceedings before any Grand Jury. The relief was sought as an aid in investigation of an alleged attempted homicide in one case and of alleged forgery, grand larceny and falsifying business records in the other. On appeals the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the New York County order and the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Kings County orders.

Each of the orders obtained at nisi prius was granted on a novel theory involving a criminal investigation and the proceeding in which the order was issued was therefore a crimi[925]*925nal proceeding (CPL 1.20, subd 18, par [b]; Matter of Santangello v People, 38 NY2d 536). There being no statutory authorization for direct appellate review, the orders of Supreme Court are not appealable and the appeals taken therefrom should have been dismissed (CPL 1.10; Matter of Santangello v People, supra).

Accordingly, the appeals to this court should be dismissed and the cases remitted to the Appellate Divisions with directions to dismiss the appeals taken to those courts.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in Per Curiam opinion.

In Matter of Alphonso C. (Morgenthau): Appeal dismissed, without costs, and case remitted to. the Appellate Division, First Department, with directions to dismiss the appeal taken to that court.

In Matter of District Attorney of Kings County v Angelo G.: Appeal dismissed, without costs, and case remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, with directions to dismiss the appeal taken to that court.

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

Related

People v. Coulibaly
2021 NY Slip Op 04616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Strong v. ADF Construction Corp.
41 A.D.3d 1209 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In the Matter of Newsday, Inc.
816 N.E.2d 561 (New York Court of Appeals, 2004)
People v. Dellavalle
259 A.D.2d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
District Attorney of Westchester County v. Santorelli
252 A.D.2d 500 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Matter of Dir.(bodek)
661 N.E.2d 988 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Woodson
165 Misc. 2d 784 (New York Supreme Court, 1995)
In re an Investigation into the Death of Manners
543 N.E.2d 83 (New York Court of Appeals, 1989)
James N. v. D'Amico
139 A.D.2d 302 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
District Attorney v. Corlett
140 Misc. 2d 162 (New York Supreme Court, 1988)
Mtr. of Abrams (John Anonymous)
465 N.E.2d 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)
People v. Jordan
96 A.D.2d 1060 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
In re of an Investigation into the Death of Jon L.
437 N.E.2d 265 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)
People v. Smith
86 A.D.2d 251 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
People v. Solomon
113 Misc. 2d 790 (New York Supreme Court, 1982)
People v. Ayala
112 Misc. 2d 821 (New York Supreme Court, 1982)
People v. Hunter
84 A.D.2d 821 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
People v. Middleton
429 N.E.2d 100 (New York Court of Appeals, 1981)
People v. Smith
110 Misc. 2d 118 (New York County Courts, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
346 N.E.2d 819, 38 N.Y.2d 923, 382 N.Y.S.2d 980, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/district-attroney-v-angelo-g-ny-1976.