People v. Barabash

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barabash

18 A.D.3d 474, 795 N.Y.S.2d 257, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4841

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

DecidedMay 2, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 474 (People v. Barabash) 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. Barabash, 18 A.D.3d 474, 795 N.Y.S.2d 257, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), dated July 30, 2004, which granted those branches of the defendants’ respective omnibus motions which were to dismiss the indictment charging them with promoting prostitution in the third degree and promoting prostitution in the fourth degree.

Ordered that the order is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by adding a provision thereto granting leave to the People to represent the charges to another grand jury; as so modified, the order is affirmed.

We conclude that an audiotape recording played to the grand jury constituted inadmissible hearsay not subject to any excep[475]*475tion. Moreover, the presentation of that recording impaired the integrity of the grand juiy proceedings, resulting in prejudice to the defendants, thereby requiring dismissal of the indictment (see CPL 190.65 [1]; 210.20 [1] [c]; 210.35 [5]; People v Steans, 187 AD2d 741 [1992]). H. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Crane and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), dated July 30, 2004, which granted those branches of the defendants’ respective omnibus motions which were to dismiss the indictment charging them with promoting prostitution in the third degree and promoting prostitution in the fourth degree.

Ordered that the order is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by adding a provision thereto granting leave to the People to represent the charges to another grand jury; as so modified, the order is affirmed.

We conclude that an audiotape recording played to the grand jury constituted inadmissible hearsay not subject to any excep[475]*475tion. Moreover, the presentation of that recording impaired the integrity of the grand juiy proceedings, resulting in prejudice to the defendants, thereby requiring dismissal of the indictment (see CPL 190.65 [1]; 210.20 [1] [c]; 210.35 [5]; People v Steans, 187 AD2d 741 [1992]). H. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Crane and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 474, 795 N.Y.S.2d 257, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barabash-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack