You are here: / / Superior Court Information Not Jurisdictionally Defective Because Different...

Superior Court Information Not Jurisdictionally Defective Because Different Victims Named

In reversing the Appellate Division, the Court of Appeals determined a Superior Court Information (SCI) was not jurisdictionally defective because it named victims not identified in the felony complaint.  The defendant-respondent was charged with grand larceny based on his use of two persons’ identities to procure mortgages to purchase two properties.  Those “identity theft” victims were named in the felony complaint. The victims named in the SCI, however, were the two banks which issued the mortgages. The Appellate Division held the SCI was jurisdictionally defective because it didn’t name the same victims as the felony complaint. The Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Lippman, held the defect was not jurisdictional because it was clear the felony complaint and SCI charged the same offenses:

Here, the offense to which defendant pleaded guilty is the same offense for which he was charged in the felony complaint, and adding the names of the victims in the SCI did not render the offense a different one. Though the felony complaint did not name the banks that provided the loans, the complaint identified the specific properties in Queens and Brooklyn on which defendant took out mortgages in Hector Sandoval’s name. … There was nothing inappropriate about adding the names of the victims as it did not change the offense alleged. … [T]here was no factual discrepancy between the felony complaint and the second SCI; the crimes were simply portrayed from a different perspective.  People v Milton, No 75, CtApp, 5-7-13

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS A DINNER GUEST IN HIS FRIEND’S APARTMENT WHEN THE POLICE RAIDED IT; OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING THE RAID LED TO A SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE APARTMENT; DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE RECEIVED MAIL AT THE APARTMENT; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH AND THE MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (CT APP).
Corporation Created by Seneca Nation to Operate a Golf Course Was Not Entitled to Sovereign Immunity—Contractor Hired to Build the Course Can Sue to Foreclose a Mechanic’s Lien
Marriage Between a Half-Uncle and Half-Niece Is Not Prohibited by Domestic Relations Law 5 (3)
PLAINTIFF’S PURCHASE OF NOTES WAS FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF BRINGING A LAWSUIT IN VIOLATION OF THE JUDICIARY LAW (CHAMPERTY STATUTE).
An Assignment of a Note, Which Was Silent About Whether the Assignment of the Right to Bring a Tort Action Was Included, Did Not, Under New York Law, Include the Right to Bring a Tort Action
Town Could Not Unilaterally Revoke Its Policy of Providing Vehicles for Certain Town Employees—Any Such Change Must Be Negotiated
No Need to Request Missing Witness Charge to Argue Absence of Witness to Jury
CRIMINAL ASSAULT BY ONE HOCKEY GAME SPECTATOR AGAINST ANOTHER NOT FORESEEABLE; YOUTH HOCKEY ASSOCIATION NOT NEGLIGENT.

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

Pre-Deliberations Note from Juror Did Not Raise Question Whether Juror Was “Grossly... Defense Attorney’s Conflict of Interest Amounted to Ineffective Assistanc...