People v. Orvelle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Orvelle

184 A.D.2d 793

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

DecidedJune 29, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 793 (People v. Orvelle) 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. Orvelle, 184 A.D.2d 793 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bianchi, J.), [794]*794rendered October 6, 1988, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for entry of an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

As the People properly concede, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30 should have been granted, inasmuch as the prosecution’s unexcused delay in being ready for trial exceeded the six-month statutory time limit (see, People v Correa, 77 NY2d 930). Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed and the indictment must be dismissed.

In view of this disposition, we do not consider the defendant’s remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Lawrence, 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, Kings County (Bianchi, J.), [794]*794rendered October 6, 1988, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the indictment is dismissed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for entry of an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

As the People properly concede, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30 should have been granted, inasmuch as the prosecution’s unexcused delay in being ready for trial exceeded the six-month statutory time limit (see, People v Correa, 77 NY2d 930). Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed and the indictment must be dismissed.

In view of this disposition, we do not consider the defendant’s remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-orvelle-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack