You are here: / / Amendment of Decision and Order Dismissing Indictment Was Proper

Amendment of Decision and Order Dismissing Indictment Was Proper

The Second Department, over an extensive dissent, determined Supreme Court properly amended a decision and order which initially granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on “speedy trial” grounds. The amended decision and order, which was issued a day after the initial decision and order, denied the motion with respect to three counts:

A court possesses “inherent authority to rectify a prior error in dismissing an indictment” … , and “where there is a clearly erroneous dismissal of an indictment or count thereof, it is unreasonable to foreclose a court from reconsidering its previous determination” …, even in the absence of a formal motion for leave to reargue by the People … . Furthermore, under the facts of this case, there was no constitutional or statutory impediment to the court’s power to promptly modify its prior determination to dismiss the indictment and to thereby correct the previous error … .

Here, the Supreme Court recognized the error only one day after issuing the initial decision and order, well within the time period during which, for example, a motion for leave to reargue could have been made and before the People even had a reasonable opportunity to make such a motion. Moreover, while any present challenge to the court’s determination of the statutory speedy trial issue in the amended decision and order was forfeited by the defendant’s knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea of guilty …, we note, in any event, that the error in initially dismissing counts seven, eight, and nine based on an alleged statutory speedy trial violation was clearly apparent from the documents in the court file. Accordingly, the prompt issuance of the amended decision and order correcting the prior mistake in this case was not improper or jurisdictionally defective. People v Francis, 2015 NY Slip Op 07679, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

You might also like
THE BUILDING AND FIRE CODES DID NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY TO CONTEST THE ANNUAL INSPECTION FEES; A NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY BASED UPON A STATUTORY DUTY WILL NOT FLY UNLESS THE STATUTE PROVIDES A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION; A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS A REQUEST FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT MUST BE DENIED IF IT SETS FORTH A CAUSE OF ACTION, THE MERITS OF THE REQUEST CANNOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE THE ONLY RELIEF SOUGHT FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY IS MONEY DAMAGES, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS THREE YEARS (SECOND DEPT).
SECOND RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY, BASED UPON THE SAME RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD.
PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
No Substantial Basis in the Record for Custody Determination
TENANT ABUTTING SIDEWALK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT DID NOT CLEAR ICE AND SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AND THAT IT DID NOT EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED OVER AN ELECTRICAL BOX AS SHE STEPPED OFF A TREADMILL; DEFENDANTS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CONDITION WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND ABOUT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE PLAINTIFF AND HER WITNESSES, INCLUDING HER EXPERT (SECOND DEPT). ​
IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN DID NOT ASCERTAIN THE POSITION OF THE ELDEST CHILD (WHO IS AUTISTIC, NONVERBAL AND HAS A SEIZURE DISORDER) AND DID NOT HAVE A THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF THE CHILD’S CIRCUMSTANCES; THE MOTION TO APPOINT A NEW ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; IN ADDITION, GIVEN THE CONFLICTING CONTENTIONS AND THE ELDEST CHILD’S SPECIAL NEEDS, THE MOTION FOR A NEUTRAL OR INDEPENDENT FORENSIC EXAMINATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Complaint Did Not Sufficiently Allege Demand for Board’s Action Would... People v Peque, Which Requires that a Defendant Be Informed of the Immigration...