People v. Pappa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pappa

43 A.D.2d 836, 350 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6015

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.2d 836 (People v. Pappa) 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. Pappa, 43 A.D.2d 836, 350 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6015 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 9, 1971, which granted defendant’s motion to suppress certain eyewitness testimony from evidence. Anneal dismissed. The People’s notice of appeal was filed on August 17, 1971, some 15 days prior to the effective date of the Criminal Procedure Law on September 1, 1971. Under the former Code of Criminal Procedure, no appeal lay from an order such as the one at bar. Had the People waited until September 1, 1971 to file their notice of appeal, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, which created a right to appeal from this type of order, would have applied (see CPL 450.20, subd. 8; CPL 450.50, subd. 1). The question before us is whether this court, in the interests of justice, should treat the premature notice of appeal as timely so as to give the People the benefits of an appeal under the new law, pursuant to the saving clause of CPL 460.10 (subd. 6). In light of the lengthy delay in this case, which appears directly attributable to the laxness of the People and presently has resulted in a delay of seven years since the incident for which defendant was indicted, we are of the opinion that the interests of justice do not require us to treat the People’s notice of appeal as timely so as to obtain for them the benefits of the new appeal provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law. Rabin, P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Latham and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 9, 1971, which granted defendant’s motion to suppress certain eyewitness testimony from evidence. Anneal dismissed. The People’s notice of appeal was filed on August 17, 1971, some 15 days prior to the effective date of the Criminal Procedure Law on September 1, 1971. Under the former Code of Criminal Procedure, no appeal lay from an order such as the one at bar. Had the People waited until September 1, 1971 to file their notice of appeal, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, which created a right to appeal from this type of order, would have applied (see CPL 450.20, subd. 8; CPL 450.50, subd. 1). The question before us is whether this court, in the interests of justice, should treat the premature notice of appeal as timely so as to give the People the benefits of an appeal under the new law, pursuant to the saving clause of CPL 460.10 (subd. 6). In light of the lengthy delay in this case, which appears directly attributable to the laxness of the People and presently has resulted in a delay of seven years since the incident for which defendant was indicted, we are of the opinion that the interests of justice do not require us to treat the People’s notice of appeal as timely so as to obtain for them the benefits of the new appeal provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law. Rabin, P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Latham and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 836, 350 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pappa-nyappdiv-1974.