People v. DiLaura

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. DiLaura

124 A.D.2d 1048, 508 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62405

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 1048 (People v. DiLaura) 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. DiLaura, 124 A.D.2d 1048, 508 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62405 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the basis of an 18-month preindictment delay. The court denied the motion without a hearing. In its memorandum decision, the court wrote that defendant "has no constitutional right (absent arrest) to be indicted at his convenience.” While that may be true, albeit irrelevant, it is obvious that the court misperceived the applicable law in denying defendant’s motion solely on the ground that the indictment was returned within the statutory period of limitation. Unreasonable preindictment delay may, in special circumstances, constitute a denial of due process of law (see, People v Singer, 44 NY2d 241, 252-256).

Nevertheless, we affirm. Defendant’s moving papers asserted only a routine claim of prejudice and were insufficient to establish special circumstances (see, People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152, 159-160).

We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — burglary, third degree, and grand larceny, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Green and Lawton, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the basis of an 18-month preindictment delay. The court denied the motion without a hearing. In its memorandum decision, the court wrote that defendant "has no constitutional right (absent arrest) to be indicted at his convenience.” While that may be true, albeit irrelevant, it is obvious that the court misperceived the applicable law in denying defendant’s motion solely on the ground that the indictment was returned within the statutory period of limitation. Unreasonable preindictment delay may, in special circumstances, constitute a denial of due process of law (see, People v Singer, 44 NY2d 241, 252-256).

Nevertheless, we affirm. Defendant’s moving papers asserted only a routine claim of prejudice and were insufficient to establish special circumstances (see, People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152, 159-160).

We have reviewed defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — burglary, third degree, and grand larceny, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Green and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 1048, 508 N.Y.S.2d 748, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dilaura-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack