People v. Marte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marte

117 A.D.2d 627, 498 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52901

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.2d 627 (People v. Marte) 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. Marte, 117 A.D.2d 627, 498 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the People, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Brennan,. J.), dated January 29, 1985, as granted that branch of defendant’s omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment, with leave to re-present the case to another Grand Jury.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch of defendant’s omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment denied, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings including the determination of the remaining branches of defendant’s omnibus motion.

The evidence before the Grand Jury, including the nature, contents, and particular location of the defendant’s personal documents which were found in the apartment, established a prima facie case that defendant unlawfully possessed the requisite amount of drugs and the firearm as charged in the indictment (CPL 190.65 [1]; 70.10; People v Mayo, 36 NY2d 1002, 1004; People v Robertson, 61 AD2d 600, affd 48 NY2d 993). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the People, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Brennan,. J.), dated January 29, 1985, as granted that branch of defendant’s omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment, with leave to re-present the case to another Grand Jury.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch of defendant’s omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment denied, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings including the determination of the remaining branches of defendant’s omnibus motion.

The evidence before the Grand Jury, including the nature, contents, and particular location of the defendant’s personal documents which were found in the apartment, established a prima facie case that defendant unlawfully possessed the requisite amount of drugs and the firearm as charged in the indictment (CPL 190.65 [1]; 70.10; People v Mayo, 36 NY2d 1002, 1004; People v Robertson, 61 AD2d 600, affd 48 NY2d 993). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.2d 627, 498 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marte-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack