You are here: / / BECAUSE THE GRAND JURY MINUTES WERE NOT PART OF THE MOTION TO AMEND THE...
,

BECAUSE THE GRAND JURY MINUTES WERE NOT PART OF THE MOTION TO AMEND THE INDICTMENT OR THE RECORD ON APPEAL, IT COULD NOT BE DETERMINED WHETHER THE DEFENDANT WAS ACTUALLY INDICTED ON THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN THE AMENDED INDICTMENT; PLEA VACATED AND AMENDED INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea and dismissing the amended indictment, held that, because the grand jury minutes did not accompany the motion to amend the indictment and were not available to the appellate court, it could not be determined whether defendant was indicted on the charged offense, a jurisdictional defect. The People argued that the grand jury voted on the offense charged in the amended indictment but the wrong subdivision of the statute was set forth in the original indictment:

“The right to indictment by a [g]rand [j]ury has . . . been recognized as not merely a personal privilege of the defendant but a public fundamental right, which is the basis of jurisdiction to try and punish an individual”… . “[S]ince an infringement of defendant’s right to be prosecuted only by indictment implicates the jurisdiction of the court,” this claim is not waived by a guilty plea and may be raised for the first time on appeal … .  Thus, “[b]efore a person may be publicly accused of a felony, and required to defend against such charges, the [s]tate must a [g]rand [j]ury that sufficient legal reasons exist to believe the person guilty” … . To that end, an indictment ensures that “the crime for which the defendant is brought to trial is in fact one for which he [or she] was indicted by the [g]rand [j]ury, rather than some alternative seized upon by the prosecution” … , providing a safeguard against prosecutorial authority by requiring the grand jury to “assess[] the sufficiency of the prosecutor’s case” … .

The record before us only establishes that a grand jury indicted defendant for violating subdivision (7) of Penal Law § 120.05, not subdivision (3) of that statute. In their motion to amend, the People stated that “the grand jury was instructed on the correct section of the statute” — presumably subdivision (3) of Penal Law § 120.05 … — and that the amendment therefore did not change the theory of their case “as reflected in the instructions and the evidence before the [g]rand [j]ury,” asserting that the charge in the original indictment (under subdivision [7]) was an “inadvertent misstatement.” It is unclear if the People were representing that the grand jury actually indicted defendant under subdivision (3). People v Mathis, 2020 NY Slip Op 03696, Third Dept 7-2-20

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS MENTIONED NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION IN THIS BUS-PASSENGER-INJURY CASE, THE COMPLAINT DID NOT, THEREFORE THERE WERE NO GROUNDS FOR THE DEMAND TO DISCOVER REPORTS OF PREVIOUS ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE BUS DRIVER (THIRD DEPT).
BOARD’S FINDING THAT CLAIMANT FRAUDULENTLY EXAGGERATED THE EFFECTS OF HIS INJURIES NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, BOARD’S DETERMINATION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
IN A LAWSUIT BY EMPLOYERS AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES OF A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST FOUND TO BE $188 MILLION IN DEBT, THE EMPLOYERS WERE DEEMED THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE TRUST, MANY OF THE EMPLOYERS’ NONCONTRACTUAL CLAIMS WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AS DERIVATIVE (PERTAINING TO THE TRUST) RATHER THAN DIRECT.
THEORY THAT DEFENDANT VETERINARY CLINIC WAS LIABLE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR A DOG BITE WHICH OCCURRED IN THE CLINIC WAITING ROOM REJECTED, ONLY A STRICT LIABILITY THEORY COULD APPLY AND PLAINTIFF CONCEDED RELIEF WAS NOT AVAILABLE PURSUANT TO STRICT LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT).
No Investment Tax Credit for Company which Delivered Natural Gas, as Opposed to Processing or Manufacturing a Product
No Need for Consent of Biological Father in Adoption Proceeding
ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT SETTLED WHETHER THE RAPE SHIELD LAW APPLIES TO A CIVIL PROCEEDING, SUPREME COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT THE QUESTIONING OF PLAINTIFF’S DAUGHTER ABOUT HER SEXUAL HISTORY TO PREVENT EMBARRASSMENT AND HARASSMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CASE (THIRD DEPT).
DESPITE FLORIDA DIVORCE, NEW YORK HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE CUSTODY/VISITATION MATTERS BASED UPON THE PARTIES’ PRESENCE IN NEW YORK.

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

ANY CHALLENGE BASED ON A DEFECT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION AND WAIVER... THE COURT WAS TROUBLED BY NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIAL AND HEARINGS’...