People v. Cates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cates

238 A.D.2d 140, 655 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3109

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 3, 1997·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J., on CPL 190.50 motion to dismiss; Mary Davis, J., at jury trial and sentencing), rendered May 10, 1994, convicting defendant of three counts of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to consecutive terms of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

Although the Department of Correction failed to produce defendant to testify before the Grand Jury on two dates, the prosecutor offered two other dates, which counsel rejected because he was on trial in another case. The prosecutor then proposed five additional dates, which counsel rejected on the ground that he was going on vacation. In these circumstances, the People provided defendant with a "reasonable opportunity” to appear before the Grand Jury (People v Ferrara, 99 AD2d 257, 261), and it was incumbent upon defense counsel to either rearrange his schedule or make appropriate arrangements for purposes of the Grand Jury proceedings.

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J., on CPL 190.50 motion to dismiss; Mary Davis, J., at jury trial and sentencing), rendered May 10, 1994, convicting defendant of three counts of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to consecutive terms of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

Although the Department of Correction failed to produce defendant to testify before the Grand Jury on two dates, the prosecutor offered two other dates, which counsel rejected because he was on trial in another case. The prosecutor then proposed five additional dates, which counsel rejected on the ground that he was going on vacation. In these circumstances, the People provided defendant with a "reasonable opportunity” to appear before the Grand Jury (People v Ferrara, 99 AD2d 257, 261), and it was incumbent upon defense counsel to either rearrange his schedule or make appropriate arrangements for purposes of the Grand Jury proceedings.

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Rubin, JJ.

People v. Cates, 238 A.D.2d 140, 655 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

238 A.D.2d 140 (People v. Cates) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related