You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO APPEAL COUNTY COURT’S...
,

DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO APPEAL COUNTY COURT’S RULING GIVING THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ACCESS TO A PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT (PSI) RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT)

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Devine, determined that the defendant did not have statutory authorization to appeal from a ruling by County Court which allowed the prosecutor access to a pre-sentence investigation report (PSI) prepared in connection with defendant’s prior conviction:

Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in Saratoga County, and a presentence investigation report (hereinafter PSI) was prepared for County Court prior to his 2006 sentencing. Several years later, an indictment was handed up in Schenectady County charging defendant with various offenses. The Schenectady County District Attorney believed that the PSI contained information relevant to the new criminal action and, as a result, applied to County Court for the limited disclosure and use of the PSI. County Court granted that request, prompting this appeal by defendant. * * *

… [T]he Schenectady County District Attorney’s Office applied for disclosure of the PSI with the aim of using it in a pending criminal action against defendant. The application therefore “relate[s] to a prospective, pending or completed criminal action” so as to constitute a criminal matter, and statutory authorization is required to appeal from any order emanating from it (CPL 1.20 [18] [b]). No such authorization can be found in CPL 450.10 or 450.15 and, thus, the present appeal must be dismissed … . People v Young, 2018 NY Slip Op 04596, Third Dept 6-21-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO APPEAL COUNTY COURT’S RULING GIVING THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ACCESS TO A PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT (PSI) RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO APPEAL COUNTY COURT’S RULING GIVING THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ACCESS TO A PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT (PSI) RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT)).PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT (PSI) (DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO APPEAL COUNTY COURT’S RULING GIVING THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ACCESS TO A PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT (PSI) RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
Pre-“Padilla” Statement by Counsel that Defendant’s Plea to an “Aggravated Felony” Would Not Result in Deportation Justified a Hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Her Conviction
PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THEIR OWN WITNESS WITH A PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY WEAKENED BUT DID NOT CONTRADICT THE PEOPLE’S THEORY OF PROSECUTION; DESPITE DIRECT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER APARTMENT WHERE HEREOIN WAS FOUND, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT POSSESSED THE HEREOIN WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL, THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INSTRUCTION.
THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DID NOT ALLOW THE COURT TO ALLOCATE ALL THE PROCEEDS OF AN INSURANCE POLICY TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD, RESPONDENT, A FORMER MEMBER OF AN INSOLVENT WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST WHICH HAD SETTLED WITH THE BOARD, WAS ENTITLED TO SOME OF THE PROCEEDS AND AN ACCOUNTING PURSUANT TO CPLR 7702 (THIRD DEPT).
UNDER THE TERMS OF THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND THE APPLICABLE INSURANCE LAW PROVISIONS, AND UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT, PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE, NOT DEFENDANT EMPLOYER, WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEMUTUALIZATION PROCEEDS WHEN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE CARRIER CONVERTED FROM A MUTUAL TO A STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER PAID THE POLICY PREMIUMS (THIRD DEPT).
Alleged Error Did Not Raise a Question of Jurisdiction or Constitute a Constitutional Defect—Therefore the Alleged Error Did Not Survive the Guilty Plea
GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT IN THIS AGGRAVATED UNLICENSED OPERATION CASE; THE INDICTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT EASEMENT BY NECESSITY CLAIM AND LOCATION OF EASEMENT APPURTENANT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.
Residential Health Care Facility’s Medicaid Reimbursement Disallowed with Respect to Certain Operating Costs

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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A FLOOR MAT NINE-SIXTEENTHS OF AN INCH THICK CREATED... PURPORTED ORAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE ART WORKS BY PLAINTIFF PETER BEARD BARRED...