People v. Harley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Harley

62 A.D.2d 1064, 404 N.Y.S.2d 140, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11155

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

DecidedApril 24, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 A.D.2d 1064 (People v. Harley) 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. Harley, 62 A.D.2d 1064, 404 N.Y.S.2d 140, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 17, 1975, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, sodomy in the second degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and indictment dismissed, with leave to resubmit the charges to another Grand Jury. This case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50. The indictment was fatally defective in that it failed to state the exact nature of the deviate sexual intercourse or the sexual contact with which defendant was charged (see People v Jackson, 60 AD2d 893; People v Smith, 60 AD2d 896; People v Ward, 62 AD2d 1005). Martuscello, J.P., Titone, Suozzi and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 17, 1975, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, sodomy in the second degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and indictment dismissed, with leave to resubmit the charges to another Grand Jury. This case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50. The indictment was fatally defective in that it failed to state the exact nature of the deviate sexual intercourse or the sexual contact with which defendant was charged (see People v Jackson, 60 AD2d 893; People v Smith, 60 AD2d 896; People v Ward, 62 AD2d 1005). Martuscello, J.P., Titone, Suozzi and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.2d 1064, 404 N.Y.S.2d 140, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harley-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack