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

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 244 (People v. Basilis) 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. 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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 244, 595 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-basilis-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack