You are here: / / SUPREME COURT MUST RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF...
, ,

SUPREME COURT MUST RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT CAN CONSIDER THE ISSUE, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING; THE SENTENCE IN THIS DWI CASE WAS ILLEGAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, remitting the case to Supreme Court, determined the trial court must rule on the motion for a trial order of dismissal before the appeal of that issue can be considered. The Fourth Department noted that the sentence imposed in this DWI case was illegal:

… [W]e may not address defendant’s contention because, “in accordance with People v Concepcion (17 NY3d 192, 197-198 [2011]) and People v LaFontaine (92 NY2d 470, 474 [1998] … ), we cannot deem the court’s failure to rule on the . . . motion as a denial thereof” … . We therefore hold the case, reserve decision, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a ruling on defendant’s motion … . …

… [W]e note … that the sentence is illegal insofar as the court directed that defendant serve a term of five years of probation, with an ignition interlock device for a period thereof, consecutive to the indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years on his conviction for violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (4-a) … . People v Capitano, 2021 NY Slip Op 05225, Fourth Dept 10-1-21

 

You might also like
Successive Photo Arrays Okay/Statement Made Voluntarily After Refusing to Waive Miranda Rights Admissible for Impeachment Purposes
“Local Authority,” Within the Meaning of the Public Authorities Law, Defined
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LEAD PAINT POISONING CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS’ RULING THAT A BREAKWALL AND RETAINING WALLS ON LAKEFRONT PROPERTY WERE FENCES WHICH VIOLATED THE CODE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND WAS ANNULLED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
NO PRETRIAL NOTICE OF IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY BY A POLICE OFFICER, CONVICTION REVERSED.
DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CONVICTED OF STATUTORY RAPE (NO FORCE) WHEN HE WAS 18 IN 1996, SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED A LEVEL ONE, NOT LEVEL TWO, RISK (FOURTH DEPT).
IF POSSIBLE, A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING MUST BE HELD TO DETERMINE DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCY AT THE TIME HE ENTERED A GUILTY PLEA, IF A HEARING CANNOT BE HELD THE PLEA MUST BE VACATED.
PLAINTIFF SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL AND DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE NEGOTIATED A PLEA DEAL WITH A CO-DEFENDANT REQUIRING... THE CONTRACT WAS AMBIGUOUS CONCERNING WHETHER PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT WAS RESPONSIBLE...