You are here: / / Error for Trial Judge to Defer to Prosecutor’s Wish to Dismiss a...
,

Error for Trial Judge to Defer to Prosecutor’s Wish to Dismiss a Count of an Indictment—The Judge Must Exercise His or Her Own Discretion on the Issue

The First Department determined the trial judge had erroneously deferred to the prosecutor’s wish to dismiss a count of the indictment before submitting the case to the jury.  The judge, not the prosecutor, has the discretion to dismiss counts.  The error was deemed harmless however:

Defendant argues on appeal that the court improperly deferred to the People’s desire to withdraw the fourth-degree possession charge, relying on People v Extale (18 NY3d 690 [2012]). In Extale, the defendant was indicted for, inter alia, first-degree assault and first-degree vehicular assault, in connection with his having intentionally driven a pickup truck into a police officer. Before the trial of those charges, the prosecutor announced the People’s intention to withdraw the vehicular assault count, and the court agreed with the prosecutor that the People had “the authority” to do so. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that “the issue was one for the trial court’s discretion, not the prosecutor’s” (18 NY3d at 695). * * *

On the merits, we agree with defendant that the court’s position with respect to the count was no different from that of the trial court in Extale, which was found by the Court of Appeals to be erroneous. No fair reading of the trial record supports the People’s argument that the trial court exercised its discretion in dismissing the charge. Indeed, its comment that “the People can dismiss [the count]” was equivalent to the Extale trial court’s comment that the prosecutor “ha[d] the authority” to dismiss the vehicular assault count (18 NY3d at 693). People v Silvestre, 2014 NY Slip Op 04562, 1st Dept 6-19-14

 

You might also like
THERE EXISTS A STATUTORY CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AN EMPLOYER’S FAILURE TO ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT A WHISTLEBLOWER POLICY (FIRST DEPT).
Judge’s Flawed Question During Plea Colloquy Required Vacation of the Plea
PETITIONER SOUGHT A TEMPORARY LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ENTER RESPONDENT’S ADJOINING PROPERTY TO INSTALL PROTECTIONS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION WORK ON PETITIONER’S BUILDINGS; RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO FULL INDEMNIFICATION FOR ANY DAMAGE (AS OPPOSED TO INDEMNIFICATION “TO THE EXTENT COVERED BY INSURANCE”) AND TO REASONABLE EXPERT’S AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (SECOND DEPT).
THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED TO MOTHER ITS AUTHORITY TO SET A VISITATION SCHEDULE FOR FATHER; FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND COUNSELING MAY BE APPROPRIATE WHERE, AS HERE, A CHILD REFUSES VISITATION WITH A PARENT (FIRST DEPT).
AFTER FINDING SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE BY DEFENDANTS, THE JUDGE FASHIONED AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION TO BE GIVEN AT TRIAL; THE CHARGE IMPROPERLY REQUIRED, RATHER THAN PERMITTED, THE JURY TO FIND SPOLIATION; THE JUDGE WAS ORDERED TO REVISE THE CHARGE (FIRST DEPT).
JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE DECEDENT WAS ADVANCING TOWARD DEFENDANT, THROWING PUNCHES AND TRYING TO GRAB THE GUN DEFENDANT WAS HOLDING (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO IDENTIFY THE PROPER PARTY TO SUE WAS ARGUABLY NOT EXCUSABLE, THE DEFENDANT HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF THE ACTION AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY; THE APPLICATION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WAS NO DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S-DECEDENT’S FALL FROM A LADDER; ONLY A DEFECTIVE OR UNSAFE LADDER GIVES RISE TO LABOR LAW 240(1) LIABILITY; THE TRIER OF FACT WOULD HAVE TO RESORT TO SPECULATION; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Plaintiffs Granted Summary Judgment In Action Against Golf Course Re: Incursion... Claimant Deemed an Employee Despite Independent Contractor Agreement