People v. Tyler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tyler

209 A.D.2d 1028, 619 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12073

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 1028 (People v. Tyler) 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. Tyler, 209 A.D.2d 1028, 619 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12073 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court did not err in [1029]*1029refusing to dismiss the indictment. The appearance of impropriety resulting from the District Attorney’s prior representation of defendant is not, standing alone, a ground for disqualification of a public prosecutor. Rather, "[t]he objector should demonstrate actual prejudice or so substantial a risk thereof as could not be ignored” (Matter of Schumer v Holtzman, 60 NY2d 46, 55). Defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice or so substantial a risk thereof as to require dismissal of the indictment and resubmission by the special prosecutor.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the police officer had probable cause to arrest defendant (see, People v McCants, 175 AD2d 847). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.—Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 4th Degree.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court did not err in [1029]*1029refusing to dismiss the indictment. The appearance of impropriety resulting from the District Attorney’s prior representation of defendant is not, standing alone, a ground for disqualification of a public prosecutor. Rather, "[t]he objector should demonstrate actual prejudice or so substantial a risk thereof as could not be ignored” (Matter of Schumer v Holtzman, 60 NY2d 46, 55). Defendant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice or so substantial a risk thereof as to require dismissal of the indictment and resubmission by the special prosecutor.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the police officer had probable cause to arrest defendant (see, People v McCants, 175 AD2d 847). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J.—Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 4th Degree.) Present—Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 1028, 619 N.Y.S.2d 475, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tyler-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack