Spota v. Donohue

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spota v. Donohue

10 A.D.3d 423, 780 N.Y.S.2d 735, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10327

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

DecidedAugust 16, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.3d 423 (Spota v. Donohue) 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

Spota v. Donohue, 10 A.D.3d 423, 780 N.Y.S.2d 735, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10327 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the enforcement of an order of the District Court, Suffolk County (Donohue, J.), dated February 27, 2003, in a criminal action entitled People v Celauro, commenced under Docket No. 2000SU54620S, which stated that it “found the defendant not guilty on the charges of [unlicensed [o]peration of a [m]otor [v]ehicle, [aggravated [Unlicensed [o]peration of a [mjotor [v]ehicle, and [d]riving without a [s]eat[b]elt,” the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J), dated October 22, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted, enforcement of the order of the District Court, Suffolk County, dated February [424]*42427, 2003, in the action entitled People v Celauro, commenced under Docket No. 2000SU54620S, is prohibited, and the matter is remitted to the District Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings before a different judge.

The District Court exceeded its authority when it stated that it found the defendant not guilty of the charges against him before the trial had commenced (see Matter of Hóltzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 571-573 [1988]). Consequently, the Supreme Court should have granted the petition. Altman, J.P., Crane, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the enforcement of an order of the District Court, Suffolk County (Donohue, J.), dated February 27, 2003, in a criminal action entitled People v Celauro, commenced under Docket No. 2000SU54620S, which stated that it “found the defendant not guilty on the charges of [unlicensed [o]peration of a [m]otor [v]ehicle, [aggravated [Unlicensed [o]peration of a [mjotor [v]ehicle, and [d]riving without a [s]eat[b]elt,” the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J), dated October 22, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted, enforcement of the order of the District Court, Suffolk County, dated February [424]*42427, 2003, in the action entitled People v Celauro, commenced under Docket No. 2000SU54620S, is prohibited, and the matter is remitted to the District Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings before a different judge.

The District Court exceeded its authority when it stated that it found the defendant not guilty of the charges against him before the trial had commenced (see Matter of Hóltzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 571-573 [1988]). Consequently, the Supreme Court should have granted the petition. Altman, J.P., Crane, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 423, 780 N.Y.S.2d 735, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spota-v-donohue-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack