You are here: / / Permission to Re-Submit Charges to a Second Grand Jury Was Required.

Permission to Re-Submit Charges to a Second Grand Jury Was Required.

The prosecutor’s failure to get the court’s permission to re-submit charges to a second grand jury was a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal of the indictment after a guilty plea.  The first grand jury took “no affirmative action” on drug charges before them. There were not enough votes to indict on or dismiss the charges.  The prosecutor then submitted the drug charges to a second grand jury which voted to indict.  The First Department noted: “Even without a formal grand jury vote, a charge can be deemed “dismissed” within the meaning of CPL 190.75(3) if the prosecutor “prematurely takes the charge away from the grand jury…”.  People vs Smith, 7310, 135/10, 801/10 First Dept. 2-7-13

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT CANADIAN INSURANCE COMPANY’S TIES TO NEW YORK WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE EXERCISE OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE COMPANY (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MASTER LEASE VIOLATED GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-321 WHICH PROHIBITS A LEASE AGREEMENT FROM PROVIDING THE LANDLORD BE INDEMNIFIED FOR LIABILITY FOR THE LANDLORD’S OWN NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE COMMERCIAL LEASE GUARANTEE MET THE DEFINITION OF AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY; THE COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS ON ENFORCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL LEASE GUARANTEES DO NOT APPLY; THE WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DEFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE (FIRST DEPT).
UNDER CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW, THE SHAREHOLDER’S DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DID NOT PLEAD THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE DEFENSE WAS PROPERLY RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE; THE PROVISION RELIED ON BY THE EMPLOYER TO AVOID PAYING DEFENDANT’S EARNED SALARY UPON TERMINATION APPLIED ONLY TO THOSE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED (ALLOWING PAYMENT TO BE DEFERRED WHEN AVAILABLE FUNDS ARE INSUFFICIENT); A DIFFERENT PROVISION REQUIRING PAYMENT IN CASH APPLIED TO TERMINATED EMPLOYEES (FIRST DEPT).
HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHEN THE PLAINTIFFS BECAME AWARE OF THE ALLEGED FRAUD; THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION FROM LABOR LAW LIABILITY APPLIED, DESPITE PRESENCE OF THREE FAMILIES IN THE HOME.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Intentional Assault Did Not Sever Causal Connection to Serving Alcohol. Full-Time Employment, No Matter How It Is Labeled, Counted Toward Teacher S...