People v. Lush

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lush

234 A.D.2d 991, 652 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13777

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 991 (People v. Lush) 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. Lush, 234 A.D.2d 991, 652 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13777 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Ontario County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: County Court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment without first conducting a hearing to determine whether defendant was denied due process of law by preindictment delay (see, People v Lesiuk, 81 NY2d 485, 490; People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152, 159; People v Vasquez, 79 AD2d 621; People v Marshall, 72 AD2d 799, 800). Under the circumstances of this case, a hearing must be conducted to determine whether the 14-month delay in arresting and indicting defendant was unreasonable or was " 'a determination made in good faith to defer commencement of the prosecution for further investigation or for other sufficient reasons’ ” (People v Lesiuk, supra, at 490, quoting People v Singer, 44 NY2d 241, 254). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J.— Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present— Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Ontario County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: County Court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment without first conducting a hearing to determine whether defendant was denied due process of law by preindictment delay (see, People v Lesiuk, 81 NY2d 485, 490; People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152, 159; People v Vasquez, 79 AD2d 621; People v Marshall, 72 AD2d 799, 800). Under the circumstances of this case, a hearing must be conducted to determine whether the 14-month delay in arresting and indicting defendant was unreasonable or was " 'a determination made in good faith to defer commencement of the prosecution for further investigation or for other sufficient reasons’ ” (People v Lesiuk, supra, at 490, quoting People v Singer, 44 NY2d 241, 254). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J.— Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present— Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 991, 652 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lush-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack