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
DEFENDANT WHO KIDNAPPED HER BIOLOGICAL CHILD WAS NOT EXEMPT FROM SORA REGISTRATION (FOURTH DEPT).
Monetary Sanction Against Plaintiff’s Attorney and Striking of Complaint Deemed Appropriate Where Discovery Delays Unexplained
PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON REAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A TAX FORECLOSURE WAS NOT ABANDONED BY THE OWNER OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY (FOURTH DEPT).
THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE OF TWO LACERATIONS ON THE VICTIM’S NECK, 3-4 AND 5-6 CENTIMETERS LONG, SUPPORTED THE TWO COUNTS OF FIRST DEGREE ASSAULT BASED UPON DISFIGUREMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Evidence Insufficient to Support Criminal Contempt in the First Degree—No Evidence of Intent to Harass (Two Dissenting Justices)
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT CASE; THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
UNDER THE DEALER ACT, GENERAL MOTORS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF CHEVROLET DEALERSHIP OF GM’S APPROVAL OF THE RELOCATION OF ANOTHER CHEVROLET DEALERSHIP IN THE SAME AREA.
Late Motion to Amend Answer Should Not Have Been Granted/Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law Established Negligence as a Matter of Law/Striking of Affirmative Defense Based on Brake Failure Proper Because Brakes Were Replaced (Spoliation of Evidence)/Fact that Defendant-Driver’s Negligence Was Sole Proximate Cause of the Accident As a Matter of Law Did Not Preclude Comparative Negligence Affirmative Defense

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 © 2025 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...