People v. Cesar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cesar

6 A.D.3d 547, 774 N.Y.S.2d 398

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

DecidedApril 12, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 547 (People v. Cesar) 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. Cesar, 6 A.D.3d 547, 774 N.Y.S.2d 398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperaran, J.), rendered April 25, 2002, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was not denied his right to due process because of an unreasonable delay in prosecution (see People v Vernace, 96 NY2d 886, 888 [2001]; People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 447 [1975]). The People presented a reasonable explanation for the 13-month delay in arresting the defendant (see People v Kirkley, 295 AD2d 759, 760 [2002]; People v Quiroz, 192 AD2d 730 [1993]; People v Donovan, 141 AD2d 835, 836 [1988]; People v Bryant, 65 AD2d 333, 337 [1978]; cf. People v Singer, 44 NY2d 241, 254 [1978]). Furthermore, no hearing was necessary on the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment because the record was fully developed as to the reasons for the delay (see People v Black, 128 AD2d 715 [1987]; cf. Matter of Benjamin L., 92 NY2d 660, 670 [1999]; People v Singer, supra). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperaran, J.), rendered April 25, 2002, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was not denied his right to due process because of an unreasonable delay in prosecution (see People v Vernace, 96 NY2d 886, 888 [2001]; People v Taranovich, 37 NY2d 442, 447 [1975]). The People presented a reasonable explanation for the 13-month delay in arresting the defendant (see People v Kirkley, 295 AD2d 759, 760 [2002]; People v Quiroz, 192 AD2d 730 [1993]; People v Donovan, 141 AD2d 835, 836 [1988]; People v Bryant, 65 AD2d 333, 337 [1978]; cf. People v Singer, 44 NY2d 241, 254 [1978]). Furthermore, no hearing was necessary on the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment because the record was fully developed as to the reasons for the delay (see People v Black, 128 AD2d 715 [1987]; cf. Matter of Benjamin L., 92 NY2d 660, 670 [1999]; People v Singer, supra). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 547, 774 N.Y.S.2d 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cesar-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack