You are here: / / THE PEOPLE DID NOT OBTAIN PERMISSION TO PRESENT TO A SECOND GRAND JURY...

THE PEOPLE DID NOT OBTAIN PERMISSION TO PRESENT TO A SECOND GRAND JURY RENDERING THE SECOND INDICTMENT VOID (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the indictment to which defendant plead guilty was void because the People did not obtain the court’s permission to present to a second grand jury after the first indictment was dismissed:

… [T]he People failed to seek leave pursuant to CPL 210.20 (4) to resubmit the matter to a second grand jury after County Court granted that part of defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to dismiss the original indictment as against him on the ground that the evidence before the first grand jury was legally insufficient. “[T]he failure to obtain leave of court to present a matter to a second grand jury, where required, deprives the grand jury of jurisdiction to hear the matter, thereby rendering the indictment void . . . , which, in turn, deprives the court of jurisdiction” … . Although, here, defendant failed to make a motion to dismiss the indictment issued by the second grand jury pursuant to CPL 210.20 (1), the failure of the People to obtain from the court authorization to submit the matter to the second grand jury deprived the second grand jury of jurisdiction to hear the matter, thereby rendering void the indictment issued by the second grand jury and depriving the court of jurisdiction, and the right to challenge a lack of jurisdiction cannot be waived by defendant … . Under these circumstances, we must dismiss the indictment issued by the second grand jury that is at issue on this appeal … . We note that there is no limit to the number of times that the People may resubmit a charge to a grand jury with leave pursuant to CPL 210.20 (4) … . People v Owens, 2021 NY Slip Op 00958, Fourth Dept 2-11-21

 

You might also like
HERE PETITIONERS’ HOUSE WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE AND THE COURT-ORDERED APPRAISAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE LOSS WAS SET ASIDE THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE PETITIONERS; THE PETITIONERS WERE THEN ENTITLED TO SUE TO SEEK FULL RECOVERY UNDER THE INSURANCE POLICY; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED FURTHER APPRAISAL PROCEEDINGS (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree Is Not a Lesser Inclusory Concurrent Count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree
IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT; THE ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED QUICKLY IN STOP AND GO TRAFFIC IS NOT A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF A REAR-END COLLISION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE APPLICABLE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION APPLIES TO MORE THAN JUST THE OBSTRUCTION OF PASSAGEWAYS; IT ALSO APPLIES TO BUILDING MATERIAL WHICH IS NOT PROPERLY STORED AND SECURED (AND FALLS); PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Appellate Court Recognized Prior Decision Was “Clearly Erroneous” and Did Not Hold Trial Court to It
DEFENDANT OWNS A VINEYARD IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN AN ALL-TERRAIN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103 BECAUSE THE VINEYARD WAS “SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL USE” (FOURTH DEPT).
THE AFORD PLEA WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY STRONG EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S INTENT TO COMMIT GRAND LARCENY, THE PLEA WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT, BASED UPON A JUROR’S KNOWLEDGE AND CONDUCT, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH 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

IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF RAISED ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT THE... THE JUDGE WHO DISMISSED THE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a) FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE...