People v. Lindsay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lindsay

69 A.D.2d 824, 414 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11482

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

DecidedApril 2, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 A.D.2d 824 (People v. Lindsay) 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. Lindsay, 69 A.D.2d 824, 414 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11482 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

The People appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered September 21, 1978, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss his indictment. Order reversed, on the law, motion denied and indictment reinstated. Since there was no basis for a dismissal on speedy trial ground because only four months had elapsed since the reversal of the defendant’s conviction and the ordering of a new trial, it must be assumed that the trial court’s authority to dismiss was based on interest of justice principles pursuant to CPL 210.40. Therefore, the failure to give notice or conduct a hearing was fatal to the validity of the dismissal [825]*825order (see People v Clayton, 41 AD2d 204). Titone, J. P., Lazer, Hargett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

The People appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered September 21, 1978, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss his indictment. Order reversed, on the law, motion denied and indictment reinstated. Since there was no basis for a dismissal on speedy trial ground because only four months had elapsed since the reversal of the defendant’s conviction and the ordering of a new trial, it must be assumed that the trial court’s authority to dismiss was based on interest of justice principles pursuant to CPL 210.40. Therefore, the failure to give notice or conduct a hearing was fatal to the validity of the dismissal [825]*825order (see People v Clayton, 41 AD2d 204). Titone, J. P., Lazer, Hargett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.2d 824, 414 N.Y.S.2d 738, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lindsay-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack