You are here: / / THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE DEFENDANT...

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE DEFENDANT IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE BECAUSE NO REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE POLICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s weapons possession and sale convictions because the state Attorney General did not have the authority to prosecute the case. The Attorney General’s authority to prosecute a criminal case is triggered when a request is made by the head of an appropriate agency, here the Superintendent of the State Police. No such request was in the stipulated record on appeal:

It is well settled that the Attorney General lacks general prosecutorial authority and has the power to prosecute only where specifically permitted by statute … . As relevant here, Executive Law § 63 (3) grants the Attorney General prosecutorial authority “[u]pon request of . . . the head of any . . . department, authority, division, or agency of the state” (emphasis added). Although the People assert that the Attorney General had authority to prosecute this matter under section 63 (3) based on a request made by the State Police, such a request would confer that authority only if made by the head of the division, i.e., the Superintendent of State Police … . Moreover, “the State bears the burden of showing that the [division or] agency head has asked for the prosecutorial participation of the Attorney General’s office” … . People v Wassell, 2019 NY Slip Op 03187, Fourth Dept 4-26-19

 

You might also like
FATHER DID NOT ABUSE THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED FUTURE PETITIONS.
Defendant Failed to Meet Its Burden on Its Summary Judgment Motion—Not Enough to Point to Deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Proof
Double Jeopardy Does Not Bar Prosecution of a Lesser Included Offense Never Considered by the Trier of Fact in the First Trial
Plaintiff Did Not Raise Question of Fact About Whether Municipality Had Notice of Sidewalk Defect and Was Affirmatively Negligent
Criteria for “Interest of Justice” Extension of Time to Effect Service Explained
MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATION WHICH ALLOWS A LIFETIME DRIVING BAN TO BE IMPOSED UPON DRIVERS WITH MULTIPLE DWI CONVICTIONS IS NOT VOID FOR VAGUENESS.
DEFENDANT SAID HE WOULD NOT GO TO THE POLICE STATION WITHOUT A PARENT OR AN ATTORNEY, THAT CONSTITUTED AN ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS STRANGULATION CASE, A POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY ABOUT UNRELATED ALLEGED STRANGULATIONS INVOLVING OTHER COMPLAINANT’S DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

COUNTY COURT COULD NOT LEGALLY FULFILL THE SENTENCING PROMISE THAT INDUCED DEFENDANT’S... POLICE EFFECTIVELY SEIZED DEFENDANT BY BLOCKING DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WITH...