People v. Ruffin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ruffin

68 A.D.3d 899, 889 N.Y.2d 468

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 8, 2009·Published

Opinion

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was provided with sufficient notice of the grand jury proceedings (see People v Sawyer, 96 NY2d 815, 816 [2001]; People v Merriman, 45 AD3d 700 [2007]). Thereafter, the defendant failed to provide written notice of his intention to testify (see CPL 190.50 [5] [a]; People v Anderson, 192 AD2d 714 [1993]). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 190.50.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Eng, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was provided with sufficient notice of the grand jury proceedings (see People v Sawyer, 96 NY2d 815, 816 [2001]; People v Merriman, 45 AD3d 700 [2007]). Thereafter, the defendant failed to provide written notice of his intention to testify (see CPL 190.50 [5] [a]; People v Anderson, 192 AD2d 714 [1993]). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 190.50.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Eng, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.

People v. Ruffin, 68 A.D.3d 899, 889 N.Y.2d 468 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

68 A.D.3d 899 (People v. Ruffin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related