You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN TIME TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE...

DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN TIME TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE GRAND JURY; INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant was not accorded a reasonable time to exercise his right to appear before the grand jury and affirmed the dismissal of the indictment:

… [T]he People were required pursuant to CPL 190.50 (5) (a) to “accord . . . defendant a reasonable time to exercise his right to appear as a witness” before the grand jury. The statute “does not mandate a specific time period for notice; rather ‘reasonable time’ must be accorded to allow a defendant an opportunity to consult with counsel and decide whether to testify before a [g]rand [j]ury” … . As County Court duly recognized, defendant had no such opportunity, for the order assigning counsel was not initially provided to [the conflict defender] by the local court. Defendant, who remained incarcerated, was in no position to know that the appointment order had been misdirected. Nor did the generic presentment notice issued by the People … clarify matters, as it was sent to a number of attorneys, including [the conflict defender]. The People contend, nonetheless, that defendant had an opportunity to testify after the grand jury vote but before the indictment was filed pursuant to CPL 150.5 (5) (a). That contention is unavailing because, under the circumstances presented, defendant was deprived of an opportunity to testify before the grand jury voted … . People v Clark, 2020 NY Slip Op 02204, Third Dept 4-9-20

 

You might also like
ORDER ENTERED UPON CONSENT IS NOT APPEALABLE, COERCION ARGUMENT MUST BE RAISED IN A MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER (THIRD DEPT).
UNDER THE FACTS, THE ATTEMPTED KIDNAPPING CONVICTION MERGED WITH THE SEXUAL ABUSE AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS.
“Contract Attorney” Properly Determined to Be an Employe
Department of Environmental Conservation’s Finding that the Owners of Land on Either Side of a Creek Also Owned a Dam Across the Creek, and Therefore Were Responsible for Making the Dam Safe, Was Not Supported by Substantial Evidence—Dam Had Been Conveyed to the City in Condemnation Proceeding
DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO APPEAL COUNTY COURT’S RULING GIVING THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ACCESS TO A PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT (PSI) RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTION (THIRD DEPT)
FAILURE TO INFORM CARRIER OF LAWN CARE WORK WARRANTED RETURN OF BENEFITS PAID, BUT NOT A PERMANENT BAR ON FUTURE BENEFITS.
Cotenant’s Exclusive Possession and Payment of Taxes and Maintenance Costs, Standing Alone, Are Not Enough to Establish Adverse Possession As Against a Cotenant/Criteria for Ouster of Cotenant Not Met
LONG HAUL TRUCKERS NOT EMPLOYEES.

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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF ACTED TO MITIGATE ITS DAMAGES FROM THE BREAKDOWN... AFTER THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION AT THE SCENE AND AFTER DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED...