You are here: / / Court Has Inherent Authority to Reinstate Indictment After Dismissal for...

Court Has Inherent Authority to Reinstate Indictment After Dismissal for Legal Insufficiency

The First Department determined the motion court properly exercised its discretion in reinstating the indictment when presented with a portion of the grand jury minutes which had inadvertently been omitted from the original submission.  The court had dismissed the indictment finding the grand jury evidence legally insufficient:

The court had inherent authority to reinstate the indictment …, and defendant’s claim that the indictment was unlawfully amended is without merit, because the text of the indictment remained unchanged. People v Godbold, 2014 NY Slip Op 03624, 1st Dept 5-20-14

 

You might also like
Criteria for Denial of Trustee Commissions Based On Misconduct, Including Post-Commission-Period Misconduct, Explained
Absence of Evidence of Physical Injury Precluded 15 Point Assessment for Violence in SORA Proceeding
FORBEARANCE CAN BE ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION CREATING A VALID CONTRACT (FIRST DEPT)
LAW OFFICE FAILURE WAS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO ANSWER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO APPEAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, HEAVY TRANSFORMER SHIFTED DOWNWARD STRIKING PLAINTIFF, NO SAFETY DEVICES PROVIDED (FIRST DEPT).
DERIVATIVE SUIT AGAINST JP MORGAN CHASE STEMMING FROM SUBPRIME MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES DISMISSED.
Plaintiff Estopped from Bringing State Retaliation Claim/Issue Decided by District Court Which Dismissed Plaintiff’s Federal Title VII Constructive Discharge Claim
Where the Parties’ Intent Can Be Determined from the Four Corners of the Contract, the Interpretation of the Contract is a Purely Legal Question Which Can Be Raised for the First Time on Appeal and Which Can Be Finally Determined by the Appellate Court (No Need for a Trial)

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Vocational Factors Not Considered Re: “Temporary Marked Partial Disability... Expert Testimony Should Not Have Been Precluded Based Upon the Timing of the...