People v. Karimi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Karimi

204 A.D.2d 572, 614 N.Y.S.2d 210

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

DecidedMay 16, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 572 (People v. Karimi) 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. Karimi, 204 A.D.2d 572, 614 N.Y.S.2d 210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.), dated September 17, 1992, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The County Court dismissed the indictment due to the People’s failure to present the evidence against this defendant and related evidence against another defendant (see, People v Guido, 199 AD2d 414) to separate Grand Juries (see, e.g., People v Glowa, 87 Misc 2d 471). While we differ with the [573]*573County Court’s analysis, the dismissal of the indictment was mandated by the lack of legally sufficient evidence presented to the Grand Jury.

Notwithstanding the fact that the evidence submitted to the Grand Jury must be viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), there was legally insufficient evidence submitted to find reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crimes charged in the indictment. The evidence before the Grand Jury was not sufficient to find reasonable cause to believe that the defendant recklessly damaged property in an amount exceeding $250 (see, Penal Law § 145.00 [3]), nor was there any proof that the defendant caused physical injury to another person more serious than scratches (see, e.g., People v Jimenez, 55 NY2d 895; Matter of Philip A., 49 NY2d 198; People v Carney, 179 AD2d 818; People v Tabachnik, 131 AD2d 611). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, 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, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.), dated September 17, 1992, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The County Court dismissed the indictment due to the People’s failure to present the evidence against this defendant and related evidence against another defendant (see, People v Guido, 199 AD2d 414) to separate Grand Juries (see, e.g., People v Glowa, 87 Misc 2d 471). While we differ with the [573]*573County Court’s analysis, the dismissal of the indictment was mandated by the lack of legally sufficient evidence presented to the Grand Jury.

Notwithstanding the fact that the evidence submitted to the Grand Jury must be viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), there was legally insufficient evidence submitted to find reasonable cause to believe that the defendant committed the crimes charged in the indictment. The evidence before the Grand Jury was not sufficient to find reasonable cause to believe that the defendant recklessly damaged property in an amount exceeding $250 (see, Penal Law § 145.00 [3]), nor was there any proof that the defendant caused physical injury to another person more serious than scratches (see, e.g., People v Jimenez, 55 NY2d 895; Matter of Philip A., 49 NY2d 198; People v Carney, 179 AD2d 818; People v Tabachnik, 131 AD2d 611). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 572, 614 N.Y.S.2d 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-karimi-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack