People v. Sibanyoni (Aubrey)

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sibanyoni (Aubrey)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 10, 2017

Docket2017 NYSlipOp 50626(U)

StatusPublished

This text of People v. Sibanyoni (Aubrey) (People v. Sibanyoni (Aubrey)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Sibanyoni (Aubrey), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

<div align="center">The People of the State of New York, Appellant,

against Aubrey Sibanyoni, Defendant-Respondent.</div>

The People appeal from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Armando Montano, J.), dated June 4, 2015, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument, and from an order (same court and Judge), dated October 19, 2015, which denied the People's motion to reargue.

Per Curiam.

Order (Armando Montano, J.), dated June 4, 2015, reversed, on the law, motion denied, accusatory instrument reinstated and matter remanded to Criminal Court for further proceedings. Appeal from order (Armando Montano, J.), dated October 19, 2015, dismissed as nonappealable.

Criminal Court erred in dismissing the accusatory instrument based upon an alleged hearsay defect not raised in defendant's dismissal motion. A post-arraignment motion to dismiss an accusatory instrument "must be made in writing and upon reasonable notice to the people" (CPL 210.45[1];170.45; see People v Littles, 188 AD2d 255, 256 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 842 [1993]). Further, orderly procedures require there to be a full development of the issues and an adequate opportunity for the People to contest the specific grounds asserted for dismissal (id. at 256; see also People v Santmyer, 255 AD2d 871, 872 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 902 [1999]). Because Criminal Court deprived the People of that opportunity, the order must be reversed (id.).

We note that the People's appeal is deemed timely in the absence of a showing that it was taken more than 30 days from the date of service upon them of a copy of the order being appealed (see People v Washington, 86 NY2d 853 [1995]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concurI concurI concur

Decision Date: May 10, 2017

</form>

</div>

</partyblock>

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

<div align="center">The People of the State of New York, Appellant,

against Aubrey Sibanyoni, Defendant-Respondent.</div>

The People appeal from an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Armando Montano, J.), dated June 4, 2015, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument, and from an order (same court and Judge), dated October 19, 2015, which denied the People's motion to reargue.

Per Curiam.

Order (Armando Montano, J.), dated June 4, 2015, reversed, on the law, motion denied, accusatory instrument reinstated and matter remanded to Criminal Court for further proceedings. Appeal from order (Armando Montano, J.), dated October 19, 2015, dismissed as nonappealable.

Criminal Court erred in dismissing the accusatory instrument based upon an alleged hearsay defect not raised in defendant's dismissal motion. A post-arraignment motion to dismiss an accusatory instrument "must be made in writing and upon reasonable notice to the people" (CPL 210.45[1];170.45; see People v Littles, 188 AD2d 255, 256 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 842 [1993]). Further, orderly procedures require there to be a full development of the issues and an adequate opportunity for the People to contest the specific grounds asserted for dismissal (id. at 256; see also People v Santmyer, 255 AD2d 871, 872 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 902 [1999]). Because Criminal Court deprived the People of that opportunity, the order must be reversed (id.).

We note that the People's appeal is deemed timely in the absence of a showing that it was taken more than 30 days from the date of service upon them of a copy of the order being appealed (see People v Washington, 86 NY2d 853 [1995]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concurI concurI concur

Decision Date: May 10, 2017

</form>

</div>

</partyblock>

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People v. Sibanyoni (Aubrey), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sibanyoni-aubrey-nyappterm-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack