People v. Oliveri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Oliveri

46 A.D.3d 267, 847 N.Y.S.2d 172

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 267 (People v. Oliveri) 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. Oliveri, 46 A.D.3d 267, 847 N.Y.S.2d 172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven L. Barrett, J., at speedy trial motion; Edward M. Davidowitz, J., at nonjury trial and sentence), rendered July 19, 2004, convicting defendant of tampering with a witness in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, held in abeyance, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court, Bronx County, for further proceedings on defendant’s speedy trial motion.

Since, as the People concede, defendant’s motion was timely, the court should not have summarily rejected it (see e.g. People v Gaillard, 252 AD2d 357 [1998]). Since the People also concede that they have a file-stamped copy of the motion, we conclude that the motion was properly filed. The People’s present claim [268]*268that they did not receive reasonable notice of the motion (see CPL 210.45 [1]) is unpreserved and unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Nardelli, Buckley, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven L. Barrett, J., at speedy trial motion; Edward M. Davidowitz, J., at nonjury trial and sentence), rendered July 19, 2004, convicting defendant of tampering with a witness in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, held in abeyance, and the matter remanded to Supreme Court, Bronx County, for further proceedings on defendant’s speedy trial motion.

Since, as the People concede, defendant’s motion was timely, the court should not have summarily rejected it (see e.g. People v Gaillard, 252 AD2d 357 [1998]). Since the People also concede that they have a file-stamped copy of the motion, we conclude that the motion was properly filed. The People’s present claim [268]*268that they did not receive reasonable notice of the motion (see CPL 210.45 [1]) is unpreserved and unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Nardelli, Buckley, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 267, 847 N.Y.S.2d 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oliveri-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack