You are here: / / UNLIKE AN INDICTMENT, A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT MUST INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE...

UNLIKE AN INDICTMENT, A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT MUST INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, THE WAIVER HERE INCLUDED ONLY THE DAY OF THE OFFENSE AND WAS THEREFORE INVALID (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the waiver of indictment was invalid because it did not include the approximate time of the offense. The court noted that the time allegations required for an indictment do not include the approximate time of the offense, but the approximate time must be included in a waiver of indictment:

Courts have held that “[w]hen time is not an essential element of an offense, the indictment, as supplemented by a bill of particulars, may allege the time in approximate terms. The indictment must, however, set forth a time interval which reasonably serves the function of protecting defendant’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, so as to enable the defendant to prepare a defense and to use the judgment against further prosecution for the same crime” … . Those cases deal with indictments, however, not waivers of indictment. Pursuant to the statute, an indictment must include a statement “that the offense charged therein was committed on, or on or about, a designated date, or during a designated period of time” (CPL 200.50 [6]), whereas CPL 195.20 requires that waivers of indictment include the offense’s “date and approximate time” … . “[I]n the interpretation of a statute[,] we must assume that the Legislature did not deliberately place a phrase in the statute which was intended to serve no purpose[,] and each word must be read and given a distinct and consistent meaning” … . Simply stating that the offense occurred on, or on or about, a specified date or within a range of time (such as a certain week, month or span of months) may meet the statutory requirements for an indictment … , but is insufficient to meet CPL 195.20’s additional “approximate time” requirement for a waiver of indictment … . Any other interpretation would render the statute’s language requiring the “approximate time” superfluous or redundant. People v Busch-Scardino, 2018 NY Slip Op 07979, Third Dept 11-21-18

CRIMINAL LAW (UNLIKE AN INDICTMENT, A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT MUST INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, THE WAIVER HERE INCLUDED ONLY THE DAY OF THE OFFENSE AND WAS THEREFORE INVALID (THIRD DEPT))/WAIVER OF INDICTMENT  (UNLIKE AN INDICTMENT, A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT MUST INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, THE WAIVER HERE INCLUDED ONLY THE DAY OF THE OFFENSE AND WAS THEREFORE INVALID (THIRD DEPT))/TIME (WAIVER OF INDICTMENT, UNLIKE AN INDICTMENT, A WAIVER OF INDICTMENT MUST INCLUDE THE APPROXIMATE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, THE WAIVER HERE INCLUDED ONLY THE DAY OF THE OFFENSE AND WAS THEREFORE INVALID (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
Prevailing Wage Law Not Preempted by Federal Telecommunications Act or Labor Relations Act
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED COMMUNITY OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S RELEASE ON PAROLE WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD OF PAROLE AND UPHELD THE DENIAL OF PAROLE, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED COMMUNITY OPPOSITION IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE STATUTORY FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD (THIRD DEPT).
RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PETITIONER KNOWINGLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED 3RD DEPT.
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S DEADLINE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE IN THIS TOXIC TORTS CASE WARRANTED PRECLUSION OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT).
IN A LAWSUIT BY EMPLOYERS AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT, THE EMPLOYERS WERE DEEMED THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE TRUST, MANY OF THE EMPLOYERS’ NONCONTRACTUAL CLAIMS WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AS DERIVATIVE (PERTAINING TO THE TRUST) RATHER THAN DIRECT.
Finding by Workers’ Compensation Board that Corrections Officer’s Condition Was Work-Related Did Not Automatically Entitle Officer to Disability Benefits Under General Municipal Law 207-c
CLAIMANT PROPERLY FOUND TO HAVE A 35% LOSS OF WAGE EARNING CAPACITY DESPITE HIS HAVING RETURNED TO WORK FULL-TIME.
ALTHOUGH NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MICHIGAN CUSTODY ORDER; FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE EXERCISED TEMPORARY EMERGENCY JURISDICTION AND HELD A HEARING ON THE CHILD’S SAFETY; THE CHILD WAS IN NEW YORK DURING FATHER’S PARENTING TIME WHEN FATHER BROUGHT A NEGLECT/CUSTODY PETITION IN NEW YORK (THIRD 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

DURING THE PLEA COLLOQUY DEFENDANT NEGATED AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME AND THE COURT... NEITHER THE LEVEL OF PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION NOR THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT CONSTITUTED...