Turdo v. Rubin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Turdo v. Rubin

77 A.D.2d 608, 430 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12331

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

DecidedJuly 21, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 77 A.D.2d 608 (Turdo v. Rubin) 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

Turdo v. Rubin, 77 A.D.2d 608, 430 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12331 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent to accept the petitioner’s plea of guilty to the offense of unlawful possession of marihuana in satisfaction of Indictment No. 78-00307-01, filed by the Grand Jury of Westchester County, which names petitioner as a defendant. Proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. In People v Turdo (74 AD2d 614) we reinstated the entire indictment against petitioner. We did not, and indeed could not, reduce the crime charged to a lesser included offense (see CPL 210.20, subd 1, par [b]; People v Maier, 72 AD2d 754). Petitioner is not entitled, as a matter of right, to plead guilty to a lesser included offense of the crime charged (see CPL 220.10, subd 3). Relief in the nature of mandamus will not lie where the petitioner has no legal right to the relief sought (CPLR 7803, subd 1; Matter of Association of Surrogates & Supreme Ct. Reporters within City of N. Y. v Bartlett, 40 NY2d 571, 574). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondent to accept the petitioner’s plea of guilty to the offense of unlawful possession of marihuana in satisfaction of Indictment No. 78-00307-01, filed by the Grand Jury of Westchester County, which names petitioner as a defendant. Proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. In People v Turdo (74 AD2d 614) we reinstated the entire indictment against petitioner. We did not, and indeed could not, reduce the crime charged to a lesser included offense (see CPL 210.20, subd 1, par [b]; People v Maier, 72 AD2d 754). Petitioner is not entitled, as a matter of right, to plead guilty to a lesser included offense of the crime charged (see CPL 220.10, subd 3). Relief in the nature of mandamus will not lie where the petitioner has no legal right to the relief sought (CPLR 7803, subd 1; Matter of Association of Surrogates & Supreme Ct. Reporters within City of N. Y. v Bartlett, 40 NY2d 571, 574). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.2d 608, 430 N.Y.S.2d 360, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turdo-v-rubin-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack