People v. M.R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. M.R.

43 A.D.3d 1188, 841 N.Y.S.2d 799

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 1188 (People v. M.R.) 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. M.R., 43 A.D.3d 1188, 841 N.Y.S.2d 799 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered May 22, 2006, convicting him of promoting gambling in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

“The power to dismiss an indictment in the interest of justice should be exercised sparingly, in those rare cases where there is a ‘compelling factor’ which clearly demonstrates that prosecution of the indictment would be an injustice” {People v Anthony C., 269 AD2d 402, 402 [2000], quoting CPL 210.40 [1]; People v Flemming, 291 AD2d 506 [2002]; People v Crespo, 244 AD2d 563, 564 [1997]). There was no such compelling factor present in this case. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment in the interest of justice. Rivera, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered May 22, 2006, convicting him of promoting gambling in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

“The power to dismiss an indictment in the interest of justice should be exercised sparingly, in those rare cases where there is a ‘compelling factor’ which clearly demonstrates that prosecution of the indictment would be an injustice” {People v Anthony C., 269 AD2d 402, 402 [2000], quoting CPL 210.40 [1]; People v Flemming, 291 AD2d 506 [2002]; People v Crespo, 244 AD2d 563, 564 [1997]). There was no such compelling factor present in this case. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment in the interest of justice. Rivera, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 1188, 841 N.Y.S.2d 799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mr-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack