People v. Ali

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ali

292 A.D.2d 538, 739 N.Y.S.2d 583, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2961

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 538 (People v. Ali) 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

People v. Ali, 292 A.D.2d 538, 739 N.Y.S.2d 583, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2961 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered February 26, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[539]*539Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was denied his statutory right to testify before the grand jury. However, by failing to move to dismiss the indictment within five days of his arraignment, the defendant waived that contention (see, CPL 190.50 [5] [c]; People v DiGabriele, 262 AD2d 331; People v Obee, 232 AD2d 430, 431; People v Valle, 198 AD2d 459). We find no factual support in the record for the allegation that the five-day limit was extended.

The defendant contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to defense counsel’s failure to make a timely motion pursuant to CPL 190.50. Failure to make such a motion, standing alone, does not constitute the denial of effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Wiggins, 89 NY2d 872, 873; People v DiGabriele, supra). Ritter, J.P., O’Brien, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered February 26, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[539]*539Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was denied his statutory right to testify before the grand jury. However, by failing to move to dismiss the indictment within five days of his arraignment, the defendant waived that contention (see, CPL 190.50 [5] [c]; People v DiGabriele, 262 AD2d 331; People v Obee, 232 AD2d 430, 431; People v Valle, 198 AD2d 459). We find no factual support in the record for the allegation that the five-day limit was extended.

The defendant contends that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to defense counsel’s failure to make a timely motion pursuant to CPL 190.50. Failure to make such a motion, standing alone, does not constitute the denial of effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Wiggins, 89 NY2d 872, 873; People v DiGabriele, supra). Ritter, J.P., O’Brien, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 538, 739 N.Y.S.2d 583, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ali-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack