People v. Lagnese

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lagnese

236 A.D.2d 629, 654 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1540

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 629 (People v. Lagnese) 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. Lagnese, 236 A.D.2d 629, 654 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1540 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), dated December 22, 1995, which granted, without a hearing, the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 210.40 to dismiss the indictment in the interest of justice.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, the motion is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

[630]*630The defendant’s assertions of the defense of agency and the affirmative defense of entrapment, and evidence that he suffers from an attention deficient disorder which causes him academic and vocational difficulties, did not justify dismissal of the indictment in the interest of justice (see, People v Hudson, 217 AD2d 53; People v Harmon, 181 AD2d 34; People v Thomas, 108 AD2d 884; People v Schlessel, 104 AD2d 501; People v Lit-man, 99 AD2d 573). Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), dated December 22, 1995, which granted, without a hearing, the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 210.40 to dismiss the indictment in the interest of justice.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, the motion is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

[630]*630The defendant’s assertions of the defense of agency and the affirmative defense of entrapment, and evidence that he suffers from an attention deficient disorder which causes him academic and vocational difficulties, did not justify dismissal of the indictment in the interest of justice (see, People v Hudson, 217 AD2d 53; People v Harmon, 181 AD2d 34; People v Thomas, 108 AD2d 884; People v Schlessel, 104 AD2d 501; People v Lit-man, 99 AD2d 573). Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 629, 654 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lagnese-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack