People v. Rimkus

Utica City Court

People v. Rimkus

193 Misc. 145, 82 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3168

DecidedOctober 4, 1948

StatusPublished

This text of 193 Misc. 145 (People v. Rimkus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utica City Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Rimkus, 193 Misc. 145, 82 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3168 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Walsh, J.

Motion to dismiss denied. Upon an arraignment in City Court upon a felony information, the sole duty of the magistrate is to determine whether or not a crime has been committed and that there is sufficient canse to believe the defendant guilty thereof (Code Grim. Pro., § 208). The sole basis of the motion is that defendant is charged with a felony. (Penal Law, § 483-a) in the information by carnally abusing a child of the age of ten years or under whereas the facts alleged in the information show the victim was an infant of the age of ten years and two months at the time of the alleged crime making the crime that of the grade of a misdemeanor (Penal Law, § 483-b).

It is immaterial whether the crime charged be a felony or a misdemeanor since both the Grand Jury and the Utica City Court have concurrent jurisdiction of indictable misdemeanors committed within the city of Utica. (Utica City Court Code, § 4; L. 1882, ch. 103, as amd. by L. 1926, ch. 588, § 1.) In addition, the Utica City Court has ‘ ‘ power in its discretion to admit any defendant charged with a misdemeanor to bail to await the action of any grand jury ” (Utica City Court Code, § 4).

The case of People v. O’Neill (53 N. Y. S. 2d 945) while sound law on a motion to dismiss an indictment which on its face is invalid is not controlling authority on a motion to dismiss a felony information.

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

Walsh, J.

Motion to dismiss denied. Upon an arraignment in City Court upon a felony information, the sole duty of the magistrate is to determine whether or not a crime has been committed and that there is sufficient canse to believe the defendant guilty thereof (Code Grim. Pro., § 208). The sole basis of the motion is that defendant is charged with a felony. (Penal Law, § 483-a) in the information by carnally abusing a child of the age of ten years or under whereas the facts alleged in the information show the victim was an infant of the age of ten years and two months at the time of the alleged crime making the crime that of the grade of a misdemeanor (Penal Law, § 483-b).

It is immaterial whether the crime charged be a felony or a misdemeanor since both the Grand Jury and the Utica City Court have concurrent jurisdiction of indictable misdemeanors committed within the city of Utica. (Utica City Court Code, § 4; L. 1882, ch. 103, as amd. by L. 1926, ch. 588, § 1.) In addition, the Utica City Court has ‘ ‘ power in its discretion to admit any defendant charged with a misdemeanor to bail to await the action of any grand jury ” (Utica City Court Code, § 4).

The case of People v. O’Neill (53 N. Y. S. 2d 945) while sound law on a motion to dismiss an indictment which on its face is invalid is not controlling authority on a motion to dismiss a felony information.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 Misc. 145, 82 N.Y.S.2d 570, 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rimkus-nyuticacityct-1948.