People v. Rios

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rios

78 A.D.2d 642, 432 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13128

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.D.2d 642 (People v. Rios) 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. Rios, 78 A.D.2d 642, 432 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13128 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 6, 1979, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment against him, based upon the People’s failure to instruct the Grand Jury that it had the option to remove the case to the Family Court. Order reversed, on the law, motion denied and indictment reinstated. CPL 190.71 (subd [b]) clearly limits the removal power of the Grand Jury to situations where three enumerated conditions are met. Since one of the requisites for Grand Jury removal of a charge against an accused juvenile offender to the Family Court is that the criminal act committed is one for which it may not indict (CPL 190.71, subd [b], par [1]), and since CPL 190.71 (subd [a]) expressly declares that robbery in the first degree (for which the defendant was indicted) is a crime for which a Grand Jury may indict, it is evident that the Grand Jury in the case at bar did not possess the option to remove the matter to the Family Court. Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Weinstein, 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 September 6, 1979, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment against him, based upon the People’s failure to instruct the Grand Jury that it had the option to remove the case to the Family Court. Order reversed, on the law, motion denied and indictment reinstated. CPL 190.71 (subd [b]) clearly limits the removal power of the Grand Jury to situations where three enumerated conditions are met. Since one of the requisites for Grand Jury removal of a charge against an accused juvenile offender to the Family Court is that the criminal act committed is one for which it may not indict (CPL 190.71, subd [b], par [1]), and since CPL 190.71 (subd [a]) expressly declares that robbery in the first degree (for which the defendant was indicted) is a crime for which a Grand Jury may indict, it is evident that the Grand Jury in the case at bar did not possess the option to remove the matter to the Family Court. Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 642, 432 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rios-nyappdiv-1980.