You are here: / / INDICTMENT DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE TIME PERIODS IN TWO...

INDICTMENT DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE TIME PERIODS IN TWO COUNTS, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THOSE TWO COUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal on two counts of the indictment should have been granted because the indictment did not notify defendant of the time periods of the alleged offenses:

… County Court erred in denying his motion for a trial order of dismissal with respect to counts one and two of the indictment, both charging him with use of a child in a sexual performance, on the ground that the indictment failed to provide defendant with sufficient notice of the time periods during which he allegedly committed those acts … . People v Carrigan, 2018 NY Slip Op 01733, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

CRIMINAL LAW (NOTICE, INDICTMENT DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE TIME PERIODS IN TWO COUNTS, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THOSE TWO COUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/INDICTMENTS (NOTICE, INDICTMENT DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE TIME PERIODS IN TWO COUNTS, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THOSE TWO COUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/NOTICE (CRIMINAL LAW, INDICTMENT DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE TIME PERIODS IN TWO COUNTS, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THOSE TWO COUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/TIME PERIODS (CRIMINAL LAW, INDICTMENTS, NOTICE, INDICTMENT DID NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE TIME PERIODS IN TWO COUNTS, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THOSE TWO COUNTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
Surrogate’s Court Should Have Held a Hearing to Determine the Validity of a Handwritten Will Supported by the Affidavits of Two Attesting Witnesses—If Valid, the 2012 Handwritten Will Would Have Revoked the 2002 Will
A PRIOR RULING IN A PRIOR ACTION FINDING THAT THE WITHHELD DOCUMENTS WERE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE DID NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC PRIVILEGE WHICH APPLIED TO EACH DOCUMENT; THEREFORE THE PRIOR RULING DID NOT TRIGGER THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE AND THE DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MUST BE DETERMINED ANEW IN THE INSTANT ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT-ATTORNEY DEMONSTRATED THE RETAINER AGREEMENT IN THE DRUNK-DRIVING AND VEHICULAR HOMICIDE CASE WAS NOT PROCEDURALLY UNCONSCIONABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S BIPOLAR DIAGNOSIS AND A STATEMENT INDICATING HIS FAILURE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFENSE DID NOT JUSTIFY AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM SORA RISK-LEVEL TWO TO THREE; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
“Negligent Ownership and Maintenance” vs “Negligent Abatement” Causes of Action in Lead-Paint Case
DEFENSE COUNSEL STATED DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA WAS WITHOUT MERIT; DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE COURT INCORRECTLY TOLD THE DEFENDANT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HAD BEEN DECIDED IN A PRIOR APPEAL: DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FOURTH DEPT).
PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON REAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A TAX FORECLOSURE WAS NOT ABANDONED BY THE OWNER OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA PRIOR TO ENTERING THE PLEA; THEREFORE THE PLEA WAS VACATED (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

UNDULY HARSH AND SEVERE SENTENCE OF PERSISTENT VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH... JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED INTO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR NEW COUNSEL AFTER...