Weinstock v. Justices of Supreme Court

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinstock v. Justices of Supreme Court

58 A.D.2d 568, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12584

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

DecidedJune 3, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.2d 568 (Weinstock v. Justices of Supreme Court) 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

Weinstock v. Justices of Supreme Court, 58 A.D.2d 568, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12584 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR, petitioners move for a writ of prohibition and the dismissal of Indictments Nos. 3450-76 and 3651-76 against them for perjury before the Grand Jury for the County of Kings on the ground that the Grand Jury lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the investigation. Application denied and proceeding dismissed, without costs. The issue of whether the Special Prosecutor was authorized to appear before the Grand Jury (in view of the minimal relationship of Kings County to the alleged acts of the petitioners) is subject to challenge on appeal from a judgment of conviction, should that occur, but is not subject to interlocutory review in an article 78 proceeding. Kings County has geographic jurisdiction, since the offense relates to alleged perjury before the Kings County Grand Jury (cf. Matter of Steingut v Gold, 54 AD2d 481). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding under article 78 of the CPLR, petitioners move for a writ of prohibition and the dismissal of Indictments Nos. 3450-76 and 3651-76 against them for perjury before the Grand Jury for the County of Kings on the ground that the Grand Jury lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the investigation. Application denied and proceeding dismissed, without costs. The issue of whether the Special Prosecutor was authorized to appear before the Grand Jury (in view of the minimal relationship of Kings County to the alleged acts of the petitioners) is subject to challenge on appeal from a judgment of conviction, should that occur, but is not subject to interlocutory review in an article 78 proceeding. Kings County has geographic jurisdiction, since the offense relates to alleged perjury before the Kings County Grand Jury (cf. Matter of Steingut v Gold, 54 AD2d 481). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 568, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinstock-v-justices-of-supreme-court-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack