You are here: / / DIFFERENT OFFENSE DATES IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION REQUIRED DIS...

DIFFERENT OFFENSE DATES IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION REQUIRED DISMISSAL.

The Fourth Department determined the superior court information (SCI) must be dismissed because it did not charge the same offenses which were charged in the written waiver of indictment (different dates):

Here, the felony complaint charged defendant with the commission of robbery in the first degree “on or about the 2nd day of 2011,” i.e., January 2, 2011. The written waiver of indictment, however, specified that defendant waived his right to indictment with respect to the commission of robbery in the first degree on February 2, 2012, and the SCI itself charged defendant with the commission of robbery in the first degree on February 2, 2011. Inasmuch as robbery is a single-act offense … , the January 2, 2011 robbery charged in the felony complaint was a ” different crime entirely’ ” from both the February 2, 2012 robbery set forth in the waiver of indictment and the February 2, 2011 robbery charged in the SCI … . Indeed, “the [dates] set forth in the [three] instruments,” i.e., the felony complaint, the waiver of indictment, and the SCI, “exclude any possibility that they were based on the same criminal conduct” … . The SCI therefore violates CPL 195.20 and must be dismissed as jurisdictionally defective … .

The SCI is also jurisdictionally defective inasmuch as it violates CPL 200.15, which provides in relevant part that a “superior court information . . . shall not include an offense not named in the written waiver of indictment.” That “express prohibition” was violated here … , inasmuch as the SCI included an offense, i.e., a robbery in the first degree committed on February 2, 2011 that was not set forth in the written waiver of indictment, which identified only a robbery in the first degree committed on February 2, 2012. People v Walker, 2017 NY Slip Op 02200, 4th Dept 3-24-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (DIFFERENT OFFENSE DATES IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION REQUIRED DISMISSAL)/SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (DIFFERENT OFFENSE DATES IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION REQUIRED DISMISSAL)/INDICTMENT, WAIVER OF (DIFFERENT OFFENSE DATES IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION REQUIRED DISMISSAL)

You might also like
THE CONTRACT WAS AMBIGUOUS CONCERNING WHETHER PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING PROPERTY TAXES; THEREFORE THE DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM, WHICH WAS BASED UPON AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTRACT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DIVORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHICH WAS SILENT ON THE DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE WAS INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE IN DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 236 (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT RAISED ABOUT WHETHER THE HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS MADE A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT EFFORT TO LOCATE THE NEXT OF KIN OF THE DECEDENT IN THIS RIGHT-OF-SEPULCHER CASE; THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR, HOWEVER, ENJOYED GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY AND NO SPECIAL DUTY WAS OWED PLAINTIFFS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A DETECTIVE ABOUT STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL-OFFENSE PROSECUTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CURTAILED BY THE JUDGE; THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS WITH RESPECT TO SEVERAL COUNTS, BUT WAS DEEMED HARMLESS WITH RESPECT TO OTHER COUNTS (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant’s Employee Had “Apparent Authority” to Act on Behalf of Defendant Insurance Agency—Plaintiff Justifiably Relied on the Apparent Authority When It Purchased a Fake Policy from Defendant’s Employee–Plaintiff Entitled to Partial Summary Judgment on the Fraud Cause of Action
DEFENDANT-LANDLORD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD-PAINT-INJURY CASE, DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE, INTER ALIA, LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE.
THE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SIGN ON THE SIDEWALK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRESENCE OF THE SIGN ON THE SIDEWALK (FOURTH DEPT).
RATHER THAN ADDRESS WHETHER THE REGULATION REQUIRING HOSPITAL PERSONNEL TO BE VACCINATED AGAINST COVID WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE, THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO APPLY THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL, FLATLY STATING THE PANDEMIC IS OVER AND IS UNLIKELY TO OCCUR AGAIN (FOURTH 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

AMENDMENT OF INDICTMENTS CHARGING A COURSE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT TO CHARGES WHICH... DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SEVERANCE FROM THE CODEFENDANTS, CODEFENDANTS TOOK...