You are here: / / JUDGE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SEVER TWO COUNTS IN AN INDICTMENT AND REMOVE...
, , ,

JUDGE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SEVER TWO COUNTS IN AN INDICTMENT AND REMOVE THE MATTER, INVOLVING A JUVENILE, TO FAMILY COURT; THE PEOPLE’S ARTICLE 78 SEEKING PROHIBITION DENIED AND DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department denied the People’s Article 78 action seeking to vacate an order by the respondent judge severing two counts which had been combined in an indictment and removing the charges to Family Court. The People objected to removing the prosecution of a 16-year-old to Family Court. In order the facilitate the removal, respondent judge severed the two counts. The People unsuccessfully argued the judged did not have the authority to sever the counts, and therefore could not send the charges to Family Court:

“[T]he extraordinary remedy of prohibition lies only where there is a clear legal right, and only when a court . . . acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction” … . “Use of the writ is, and must be, restricted so as to prevent incessant interruption of pending judicial proceedings by those seeking collateral review of adverse determinations made during the course of those proceedings” … .

There is no merit in the People’s contention that the court lacks the authority to sever charges that were joined in a single indictment. This argument would have validity in cases where charges were properly joinable in a single indictment. However, the law is clear that the determination of whether the charges were, in fact, properly joinable in the first instance, is a duty of the court that is not delegated to the prosecution or the grand jury.

The court has a duty to examine the indictment to determine whether joinder is proper pursuant to CPL 200.20(a) or (b). Notably, the People have not provided any precedent to support their position to the contrary. Courts routinely rule on the issue of whether charges in an indictment are properly joinable under CPL 200.20(2) and sever those charges that are not … .

While the People disagree with the court’s finding that the … charges were not properly joinable under CPL 200.20(2)(b), determination of this issue is not before us in this article 78 proceeding. Rather, we are only asked, and we only have the authority, to determine whether the court acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its authority. Matter of Vance v Roberts, 2019 NY Slip Op 07358, First Dept 10-10-19

 

You might also like
UNLOADING STEEL PLATES USED TO COVER EXCAVATED AREAS AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE WAS A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
JUDGE PROPERLY SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AWARDING $0 FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE VERDICT AS INCONSISTENT (FIRST DEPT).
Even If Information About Prosecution Witness’ Recent Drug Sales Had Been Withheld in Violation of Brady/Giglio, the Withheld Information Was Not “Material” In That It Would Not Have Affected the Outcome
PURCHASER OF UNSOLD SHARES IN A COOPERATIVE BOUND BY A STIPULATION TO WHICH PURCHASER WAS NOT A PARTY; STIPULATION RESTRICTED THE NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS WHO COULD BE ELECTED BY HOLDERS OF UNSOLD SHARES.
THE 2009 ROBERTS CASE APPLIES RETROACTIVELY TO RENT OVERCHARGES STEMMING FROM THE RENTAL OF DEREGULATED APARTMENTS BY LANDLORDS RECEIVING J-51 TAX BENEFITS; THE OVERCHARGES HERE MUST BE RE-CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A RECENT RULING BY THE COURT OF APPEALS; THE CLASS OF TENANTS IN THIS RENT OVERCHARGE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXPANDED BY SUPREME COURT (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for Challenge to Prenuptial Agreement Not Met
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS DID NOT ADVISE IT OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMMERCIAL LEASE WHICH EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATED THE OPTION FOR PLAINTIFF TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR $11.4 MILLION IF THE LANDLORD RECEIVES A BONA FIDE PURCHASE OFFER; THE LANDLORD IN FACT RECEIVED SUCH AN OFFER AND PLAINITFF EXERCISED ITS OPTION, BUT PAID $14.5 MILLION (FIRST DEPT). ​
INSURER OF COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT TO MAINTAIN STREET LIGHTING AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND THE CITY IN PERSONAL INJURY SUITS ALLEGING INADEQUATE LIGHTING AND MALFUNCTIONING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE ADVERSE INTEREST EXCEPTION TO THE IN PARI DELICTO... COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE EAVESDROPPING WARRANTS TO INTERCEPT CELL PHONE...