People v. Duncan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Duncan

22 A.D.2d 902, 255 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2577

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 902 (People v. Duncan) 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. Duncan, 22 A.D.2d 902, 255 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Nassau County, entered May 8, 1964, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment for criminal negligence in- the operation of an automobile resulting in death (Penal Law, § 1053-a), on the ground that the evidence before the Grand Jury was insufficient in law to warrant the finding of the indictment. Order reversed on the law; motion denied; and indictment reinstated. No questions of fact were considered. In our opinion, the evidence submitted to the Grand Jury was sufficient to warrant the indictment (see Code Crim. Pro., § 251). (For prior decision reversing judgment of conviction, and granting a new trial to defendant, see 15 A D 2d 581.) Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Nassau County, entered May 8, 1964, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment for criminal negligence in- the operation of an automobile resulting in death (Penal Law, § 1053-a), on the ground that the evidence before the Grand Jury was insufficient in law to warrant the finding of the indictment. Order reversed on the law; motion denied; and indictment reinstated. No questions of fact were considered. In our opinion, the evidence submitted to the Grand Jury was sufficient to warrant the indictment (see Code Crim. Pro., § 251). (For prior decision reversing judgment of conviction, and granting a new trial to defendant, see 15 A D 2d 581.) Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 902, 255 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-duncan-nyappdiv-1964.