People v. West

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. West

44 A.D.2d 608, 353 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5405

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.2d 608 (People v. West) 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. West, 44 A.D.2d 608, 353 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5405 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, rendered July 27, 1971, convicting him of criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fourth degree and criminally selling a dangerous drug in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. On the court’s own motion and on consent of both parties, a prior motion by appellant for summary reversal of the judgment is deemed renewed and the motion is granted, on the law; and, upon the request of the People and in the interests of justice, the indictment is dismissed. The absence of the transcript of the summations of counsel mandates reversal (People v. Adams, 22 A D 2d 892). The People state that a new trial is impossible since the People’s witnesses are presently incarcerated following their convictions for various crimes/ Defendant has already served two and a half years of the imposed reformatory sentence. The interests of justice mandate dismissal of the indictment. Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Cohalan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, rendered July 27, 1971, convicting him of criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fourth degree and criminally selling a dangerous drug in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. On the court’s own motion and on consent of both parties, a prior motion by appellant for summary reversal of the judgment is deemed renewed and the motion is granted, on the law; and, upon the request of the People and in the interests of justice, the indictment is dismissed. The absence of the transcript of the summations of counsel mandates reversal (People v. Adams, 22 A D 2d 892). The People state that a new trial is impossible since the People’s witnesses are presently incarcerated following their convictions for various crimes/ Defendant has already served two and a half years of the imposed reformatory sentence. The interests of justice mandate dismissal of the indictment. Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Cohalan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 608, 353 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-west-nyappdiv-1974.