You are here: / / COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO AMEND A DEFECTIVE...

COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO AMEND A DEFECTIVE CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN ALLEGED OVERT ACT.

The Third Department determined County Court should not have allowed the People to amend a conspiracy count which did not charge the commission of an overt act:

​

Given that “[a]n indictment may not be amended in any respect . . . for the purpose of curing: (a) [a] failure . . . to charge or state an offense; or (b) “[l]egal insufficiency of the factual allegations” (CPL 200.70 [2]), County Court had no authority to grant the People’s motion to amend the indictment to allege an overt act. Moreover, the People’s contention that defendant consented to the amendment is directly contradicted by the fact that defendant specifically argued that the proper remedy for the People’s failure was dismissal of count 2 of the indictment. Accordingly, as count 2 was jurisdictionally defective and not subject to amendment, we reverse the conviction for conspiracy in the fourth degree and the sentence imposed thereon … . People v Placido, 2017 NY Slip Op 02694, 3rd Dept 4-6-17

CRIMINAL LAW (COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO AMEND A DEFECTIVE CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN ALLEGED OVERT ACT)/INDICTMENT, AMENDMENT OF (COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO AMEND A DEFECTIVE CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN ALLEGED OVERT ACT)/CONSPIRACY (CRIMINAL LAW, COUNTY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO AMEND A DEFECTIVE CONSPIRACY COUNT BY ADDING AN ALLEGED OVERT ACT)

You might also like
PERSONS WHO SIGNED A DESIGNATING PETITION WHICH WAS DEEMED NULL AND VOID COULD VALIDLY SIGN A SUBSEQUENT OPPORTUNITY TO BALLOT PETITION (THIRD DEPT).
Construction of Dock Could Not Be Regulated by Town—Land Under Navigable Waters Owned by State
DESPITE EVIDENCE THAT BOTH DRIVERS WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE INTERSECTION WHERE THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPER SIGNAGE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE ACCIDENT; THE TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED FATHER’S MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PETITION WITHOUT HOLDING A BEST INTERESTS HEARING, SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE FACTS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION AS TRUE, AND SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON UNSWORN INFORMATION FROM THE ATTORNEYS (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE FACT THAT THE LADDER SLID OR SHIFTED AND FELL WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF DID NOT NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).
CRIME VICTIMS DO NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE A PRISONER’S RELEASE ON PAROLE (THIRD DEPT).
THE PETITIONS FOR A PERMISSIVE REFERENDUM ON THE BONDS TO BE ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN TOWN BUILDINGS WERE NOT REJECTED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONTROLLING STATUTES; THEREFORE THE TOWN WAS REQUIRED TO SET UP THE PERMISSIVE REFERENDUM FOR NOVEMBER 2023 (THIRD DEPT). ​
Nature of Motion to Resettle Explained

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

RARE CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE COURT SHOULD HAVE DIRECTLY QUESTIONED DEFENDANT ABOUT... DEFENDANT ARGUED HAD SHE BEEN INFORMED DEPORTATION WAS NOT AN ISSUE SHE WOULD...