People v. Ray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ray

58 A.D.2d 588, 395 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12624

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

DecidedJune 6, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 58 A.D.2d 588 (People v. Ray) 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. Ray, 58 A.D.2d 588, 395 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered August 17, 1976, which granted defendant-respondent’s oral motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to prosecute. Order reversed, on the law, and indictment reinstated. By statute, a motion to dismiss an indictment must be made in writing and upon notice to the People (CPL 210.45, subd 1; see, also, People v Pichkur, 52 AD2d 852; People v Ryan, 42 AD2d 869; People v Trottie, 47 AD2d 751). The failure to comply with this requirement, unless consented to by the District Attorney, is reversible error (see People v Rao, 53 AD2d 904; People v Orr, 53 AD2d 634; People v Smith, 53 AD2d 652). In this case the District Attorney opposed the application. Furthermore, the basic speedy-trial contention of defendant lacks merit. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, 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, entered August 17, 1976, which granted defendant-respondent’s oral motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to prosecute. Order reversed, on the law, and indictment reinstated. By statute, a motion to dismiss an indictment must be made in writing and upon notice to the People (CPL 210.45, subd 1; see, also, People v Pichkur, 52 AD2d 852; People v Ryan, 42 AD2d 869; People v Trottie, 47 AD2d 751). The failure to comply with this requirement, unless consented to by the District Attorney, is reversible error (see People v Rao, 53 AD2d 904; People v Orr, 53 AD2d 634; People v Smith, 53 AD2d 652). In this case the District Attorney opposed the application. Furthermore, the basic speedy-trial contention of defendant lacks merit. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 588, 395 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ray-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack