People v. Georges

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Georges

275 A.D.2d 749, 713 N.Y.S.2d 487, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9229

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 749 (People v. Georges) 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. Georges, 275 A.D.2d 749, 713 N.Y.S.2d 487, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9229 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the People from so much of an order of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), dated April 20, 1999, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss counts six, seven, and eight of the indictment.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss counts six, seven, and eight of the indictment is denied, and counts six, seven, and eight of the indictment are reinstated.

The defendant was indicted, inter alia, on charges of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under count six of the indictment and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under counts seven and eight of the indictment. As to those charges, a Grand Jury need not be instructed explicitly that a firearm, to be operable, must have the capacity to discharge ammunition (see generally, People v Longshore, 86 NY2d 851). The instructions given to the Grand Jury here as to operability were more than sufficient (see, People v Hilaire, 270 AD2d 359). Accordingly, the court should not have dismissed counts six, seven, and eight of the indictment. Florio, J. P., Luciano, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the People from so much of an order of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), dated April 20, 1999, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss counts six, seven, and eight of the indictment.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss counts six, seven, and eight of the indictment is denied, and counts six, seven, and eight of the indictment are reinstated.

The defendant was indicted, inter alia, on charges of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree under count six of the indictment and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under counts seven and eight of the indictment. As to those charges, a Grand Jury need not be instructed explicitly that a firearm, to be operable, must have the capacity to discharge ammunition (see generally, People v Longshore, 86 NY2d 851). The instructions given to the Grand Jury here as to operability were more than sufficient (see, People v Hilaire, 270 AD2d 359). Accordingly, the court should not have dismissed counts six, seven, and eight of the indictment. Florio, J. P., Luciano, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 749, 713 N.Y.S.2d 487, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-georges-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack