People v. Basilis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Basilis

191 A.D.2d 244, 595 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2217

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 11, 1993·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.), entered March 7, 1991, which granted defendant’s motion to suppress ■ physical evidence, unanimously dismissed, with leave to reinstate within one year of the entry of this order, upon submission of proof of service of appellant’s brief upon the defendant.

[245]*245The People appeal from an order granting defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence. The record reveals that, although trial counsel was served with the People’s appellate brief, defendant himself was not personally served. Trial counsel’s duty to represent defendant terminated at the conclusion of the proceedings below (see, 22 NYCRR 606.5 [a] [1]) and he has not been assigned or retained as to this appeal or made any appearance on defendant’s behalf. Accordingly, no valid service upon defendant has been effected, and the appeal must be dismissed (see, People v Miller, 188 AD2d 399). Concur —Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.), entered March 7, 1991, which granted defendant’s motion to suppress ■ physical evidence, unanimously dismissed, with leave to reinstate within one year of the entry of this order, upon submission of proof of service of appellant’s brief upon the defendant.

[245]*245The People appeal from an order granting defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence. The record reveals that, although trial counsel was served with the People’s appellate brief, defendant himself was not personally served. Trial counsel’s duty to represent defendant terminated at the conclusion of the proceedings below (see, 22 NYCRR 606.5 [a] [1]) and he has not been assigned or retained as to this appeal or made any appearance on defendant’s behalf. Accordingly, no valid service upon defendant has been effected, and the appeal must be dismissed (see, People v Miller, 188 AD2d 399). Concur —Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

People v. Basilis, 191 A.D.2d 244, 595 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

191 A.D.2d 244 (People v. Basilis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related