You are here: / / THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) DID NOT INCLUDE THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE...

THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) DID NOT INCLUDE THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE AND WAS THEREFORE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department reversed defendant’s conviction and dismissed the Superior Court Information (SCI) because there was no reference to the time of the offense:

A waiver of indictment must be executed in strict compliance with the requirements of CPL 195.20, which provides, as pertinent here, that it shall include the “approximate time . . . of each offense to be charged in the [SCI]” … . Although “courts may read both [the SCI and the waiver of indictment] together, as a single document, to satisfy the requirements of CPL 195.20,” it is undisputed that here neither contained any reference to the time of the offense … . Further, this is not a case “where the time of the offense is unknown, or, perhaps, unknowable so as to excuse the absence of such information” … . Indeed, a specific time was provided in the felony complaint. People v Vaughn, 2019 NY Slip Op 04500, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

You might also like
THE FAMILY COURT JUDGE HAD REPRESENTED MOTHER IN A RELATED CUSTODY MATTER YEARS BEFORE FATHER BROUGHT A PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY; THE JUDGE WAS STATUTORILY DISQUALIFIED FROM THE CURRENT PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT). ​
Mother’s Prior Consent to Placement with Sister Did Not Preclude Mother’s Petition for Custody​
Attorney Penalized for Making a Baseless Request for a Change of Venue
Order Prohibiting Visitation Unless Recommended by Therapist Improper
FAILURE TO READ JURY NOTE VERBATIM WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL.
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE ON BEHALF OF THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DID NOT KNOWINGLY CONSENT AND DID NOT MAINTAIN CONTROL OVER THE PROSECUTION; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S SUPERVISED VISITATION IS A “DRASTIC REMEDY” WHICH MUST BE SUPPORTED BY “SUBSTANTIAL PROOF” CONTINUED VISITATION “WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE CHILD;” THE PROOF HERE DID NOT MEET THOSE CRITERIA (THIRD DEPT). ​
Finding that Claimant’s Absenteeism Was Not Disqualifying Misconduct Was Supported by Substantial Evidence; Courts’ Review Powers in this Context 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

DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE RISKS OF CONTINUING TO BE REPRESENTED... THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS INFORMED...