You are here: / / COUNTY COURT DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISMISS AN INDICTMENT...
, , ,

COUNTY COURT DENIED PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISMISS AN INDICTMENT ON THE GROUND THE PEOPLE HAD LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE INDICTMENT AT THE TIME HE PLED GUILTY TO A PRIOR INDICTMENT (CPL 40.40); PETITIONER’S REMEDY IS DIRECT APPEAL, NOT THE INSTANT ARTICLE 78 PETITION SEEKING PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined petitioner must seek review of the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment pursuant to CPL 40.40 by direct appeal, not by the instant Article 78 action for prohibition or mandamus re: the district attorney and the judge. Petitioner moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the People had legally sufficient evidence to support the indictment at the time he pled guilty to a prior indictment. County Court denied that motion without a hearing, even though County Court noted it could not determine whether the People had legally sufficient evidence at the time petitioner pled guilty:

The District Attorney contends that petitioner may not obtain collateral review of County Court’s denial of his motion through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. We agree. “Neither [of the extraordinary remedies of] prohibition nor mandamus lies as a means to obtain collateral review of an alleged error of law particularly where, as here, there is an adequate remedy at law by way of a direct appeal” … . Any error in County Court’s decision denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss indictment No. 3 without a hearing is, at most, a mere error of law that does not justify the invocation of the extraordinary remedies sought … . Matter of Davis v Nichols, 2019 NY Slip Op 04794, Third Dept 6-13-19

 

You might also like
PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE INSTRUCTED THE GRAND JURY ON THE AGENCY DEFENSE IN THIS CRIMINAL SALE OF MARIJUANA CASE, INDICTMENT PROPERLY DISMISSED.
THE DEBT WAS ACCELERATED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY STAY WAS LIFTED; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED; DISAGREEING WITH THE 2ND DEPARTMENT, THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT NEED TO INTERPOSE A COUNTERCLAIM TO CANCEL THE MORTGAGE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1501 (THIRD DEPT).
THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S DECISION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE THE APPLICATION DID NOT SPECIFY WHEN THE OBJECTIONS TO THE DECISION WERE MADE (THIRD DEPT).
Transportation-Contract Bidding Requirement that the Carrier Have an “Out of Service” Rate Less than that Required by the State Was Not Preempted by State Law/The Requirement Was Not Anti-Competitive Merely Because It Excluded Petitioner from Consideration—Analytical Criteria Discussed
Father, Who Had Not Been Informed of the Birth of His Child Until After the Child Was Adopted, Was Properly Awarded Custody of the Child
Family Court Cannot Review Support Magistrate’s Order in Absence of Specific Objection
MOTION TO PURGE THE CONTEMPT ORDER REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF SOLID WASTE THAT HAD BEEN DUMPED ON A FIELD BY DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THE INCARCERATED DEFENDANT SHOULD BE RELEASED (THIRD DEPT).
THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND LEGISLATION PROHIBITING EVICTIONS DURING THE PANDEMIC APPLIED TO A HOLDOVER TENANT WHO HAD ENTERED AN AGREEMENT TO VACATE THE APARTMENT (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

BUILDING OWNERS EXPENDED SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF AN APARTMENT... PETITIONER HAD AN EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR WITH MOTHER WHO REMAINS MARRIED, PETITION...