People v. Baker

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Baker

478 N.E.2d 197, 64 N.Y.2d 1027, 489 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 16941

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 2, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 478 N.E.2d 197 (People v. Baker) 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

People v. Baker, 478 N.E.2d 197, 64 N.Y.2d 1027, 489 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 16941 (N.Y. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The appeal should be dismissed. Although the Appellate Division’s order of reversal recited that it was “on the law,” it is evident from its memorandum that its order was made in the exercise of discretion and, therefore, does not satisfy the jurisdictional predicate of CPL 450.90 (2) (a) (People v Johnson, 47 NY2d 124; People v Williams, 31 NY2d 151). Not only did it grant the People leave to resubmit to another Grand Jury, which CPL 210.20 (1) (i) and CPL 210.20 (4) authorize it to do “in its discretion” after dismissal pursuant to CPL 210.40, but also it characterized the Trial Judge’s denial of the 210.40 motion as an “improvident exercise of discretion” not as “an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.” In so doing it substituted its discretion for the improvident discretionary denial of the Trial Judge, as it had the right to do, its authority being as broad as that of the trial court (Matter of Von Bulow, 63 NY2d 221, 225, n; People v Beige, 41 NY2d 60).

Appeal dismissed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The appeal should be dismissed. Although the Appellate Division’s order of reversal recited that it was “on the law,” it is evident from its memorandum that its order was made in the exercise of discretion and, therefore, does not satisfy the jurisdictional predicate of CPL 450.90 (2) (a) (People v Johnson, 47 NY2d 124; People v Williams, 31 NY2d 151). Not only did it grant the People leave to resubmit to another Grand Jury, which CPL 210.20 (1) (i) and CPL 210.20 (4) authorize it to do “in its discretion” after dismissal pursuant to CPL 210.40, but also it characterized the Trial Judge’s denial of the 210.40 motion as an “improvident exercise of discretion” not as “an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.” In so doing it substituted its discretion for the improvident discretionary denial of the Trial Judge, as it had the right to do, its authority being as broad as that of the trial court (Matter of Von Bulow, 63 NY2d 221, 225, n; People v Beige, 41 NY2d 60).

Appeal dismissed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 N.E.2d 197, 64 N.Y.2d 1027, 489 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 16941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-baker-ny-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack