People v. Channer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Channer

209 A.D.2d 1056, 619 N.Y.S.2d 1013

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 1056 (People v. Channer) 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. Channer, 209 A.D.2d 1056, 619 N.Y.S.2d 1013 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Niagara County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: County Court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment (see, CPL 30.30 [1] [a]) without conducting a hearing. The criminal proceeding commenced with the filing of the felony information on January 30, 1992 (see, CPL 1.20 [16]). In her moving papers, defendant alleged an unexcused delay of over 13 months, and the motion should have been granted unless the People controverted the factual basis for the motion (see, People v Santos, 68 NY2d 859, 861). The court, however, summarily denied the motion before the People responded. The People, therefore, had no opportunity to show that any portion of the delay should be excluded (see, People v Wiggins, 194 AD2d 840, 842; People v Johnson, 184 AD2d 862, 864). Therefore, we reserve decision and remit the matter for a hearing to resolve the factual issues raised by defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30 (see, People v Reinhardt, 193 AD2d 1122, 1123; People v Davis, 184 AD2d 575, 578; People v Grant, 127 AD2d 965). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—Criminal Possession Stolen Property, 4th Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Niagara County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: County Court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment (see, CPL 30.30 [1] [a]) without conducting a hearing. The criminal proceeding commenced with the filing of the felony information on January 30, 1992 (see, CPL 1.20 [16]). In her moving papers, defendant alleged an unexcused delay of over 13 months, and the motion should have been granted unless the People controverted the factual basis for the motion (see, People v Santos, 68 NY2d 859, 861). The court, however, summarily denied the motion before the People responded. The People, therefore, had no opportunity to show that any portion of the delay should be excluded (see, People v Wiggins, 194 AD2d 840, 842; People v Johnson, 184 AD2d 862, 864). Therefore, we reserve decision and remit the matter for a hearing to resolve the factual issues raised by defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30 (see, People v Reinhardt, 193 AD2d 1122, 1123; People v Davis, 184 AD2d 575, 578; People v Grant, 127 AD2d 965). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—Criminal Possession Stolen Property, 4th Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 1056, 619 N.Y.S.2d 1013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-channer-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack