People v. Viano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Viano

287 A.D.2d 584, 731 N.Y.S.2d 500, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9611

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

DecidedOctober 15, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 584 (People v. Viano) 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. Viano, 287 A.D.2d 584, 731 N.Y.S.2d 500, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9611 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered August 24, 1999, convicting him of driving while intoxicated as a felony, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence, and (2) a resentence of the same court, imposed January 12, 2000.

Ordered that the judgment and the resentence are affirmed.

The defendant was indicted on one count of driving while intoxicated as a felony, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3). Although the defendant’s prior conviction of driving while intoxicated elevated the offense charged from a misdemeanor to a felony, the prosecution did not file a special information regarding the prior conviction at the same time as the indictment, pursuant to CPL 200.60. The trial court, over the defendant’s objection, granted the prosecution’s request to file the special information prior to the close of the People’s case.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the prosecution’s [585]*585failure to file a special information at the same time as the indictment, pursuant to CPL 200.60, was a nonjurisdictional, procedural defect (see, People v DiCarluccio, 168 AD2d 509; People v Gill, 109 AD2d 419; People v Giuliano, 52 AD2d 240; Wright v Davies, 41 AD2d 879). Moreover, CPL 200.60 (3) provides that a court may arraign a defendant upon a special information in the absence of a jury at any time “[a]fter [the] commencement of the trial and before the close of the people’s case.” As such, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in allowing the prosecution to file the special information prior to the close of the People’s case.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moroever, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered August 24, 1999, convicting him of driving while intoxicated as a felony, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence, and (2) a resentence of the same court, imposed January 12, 2000.

Ordered that the judgment and the resentence are affirmed.

The defendant was indicted on one count of driving while intoxicated as a felony, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3). Although the defendant’s prior conviction of driving while intoxicated elevated the offense charged from a misdemeanor to a felony, the prosecution did not file a special information regarding the prior conviction at the same time as the indictment, pursuant to CPL 200.60. The trial court, over the defendant’s objection, granted the prosecution’s request to file the special information prior to the close of the People’s case.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the prosecution’s [585]*585failure to file a special information at the same time as the indictment, pursuant to CPL 200.60, was a nonjurisdictional, procedural defect (see, People v DiCarluccio, 168 AD2d 509; People v Gill, 109 AD2d 419; People v Giuliano, 52 AD2d 240; Wright v Davies, 41 AD2d 879). Moreover, CPL 200.60 (3) provides that a court may arraign a defendant upon a special information in the absence of a jury at any time “[a]fter [the] commencement of the trial and before the close of the people’s case.” As such, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in allowing the prosecution to file the special information prior to the close of the People’s case.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moroever, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 584, 731 N.Y.S.2d 500, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-viano-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack