People v. Bowman

644 N.E.2d 1366, 84 N.Y.2d 923, 620 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 4103
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 29, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by50 cases

This text of 644 N.E.2d 1366 (People v. Bowman) 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. Bowman, 644 N.E.2d 1366, 84 N.Y.2d 923, 620 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 4103 (N.Y. 1994).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the County Court should be affirmed.

In 1990, defendant was charged in 20 separate prosecutor’s informations with violations of General Municipal Law § 136 regulating conduct of junkyards. On April 27, 1992, while the matter was still pending, yet another information was served on defendant, alleging some of the same offenses charged in the previous informations. Defendant was, however, never arraigned on the succeeding instrument. After moving unsuccessfully for dismissal pursuant to CPL 100.50 of all but one of the instruments filed prior to April 27, 1992, defendant was convicted of 20 counts of violating the General Municipal Law.

CPL 100.50 (1) provides that upon the filing of a subsequent information, the first instrument is "superseded by the second [925]*925and, upon the defendant’s arraignment upon the latter, the count of the first instrument charging such offense must be dismissed by the court.” Defendant contends that dismissal of all preceding instruments was required upon the filing of the April 1992 information, and that his conviction on the preceding informations was therefore a nullity. Because defendant was never arraigned on the succeeding information, however, no statutory obligation arose to dismiss the preceding instruments that charged the same offenses. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction upon the earlier informations was not jurisdictionally barred.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and conclude them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

Related

Zepsa Indus., Inc. v. 401 W. Prop. Owners, LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 06837 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Stone Cast, Inc. v. Couch, Dale Marshall P.C.
2025 NY Slip Op 05860 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Shea v. Signal Hill Rd. LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 3724 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Leggio v. State of New York
2019 NY Slip Op 3244 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Pineiro v. Rush
2018 NY Slip Op 4994 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
GM Broadcasting, Inc. v. Cornelius Enterprises, LLC
2017 NY Slip Op 8593 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Reynolds v. Reynolds
2017 NY Slip Op 8248 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Condor Funding, LLC v. 176 Broadway Owners Corp.
2017 NY Slip Op 719 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Copeland
52 Misc. 3d 372 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 2016)
Mascorp, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co.
122 A.D.3d 1195 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Mortoza
45 Misc. 3d 658 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 2014)
Koulajian v. Smith
101 A.D.3d 498 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Knobel v. Shaw
90 A.D.3d 493 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Marzec v. Nye
690 S.E.2d 537 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2010)
Faery v. City of Lockport
70 A.D.3d 1375 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Feldin v. Doty
45 A.D.3d 1225 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Barry v. Gorecki
38 A.D.3d 1213 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Santos v. Baldwin-Endico Realty Associates
24 A.D.3d 225 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Deinhart v. Pilato
12 A.D.3d 1032 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Maxtone-Graham v. Landmarks Preservation Commission
1 A.D.3d 295 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
644 N.E.2d 1366, 84 N.Y.2d 923, 620 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 4103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bowman-ny-1994.