From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Combest

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 3, 2005
4 N.Y.3d 859 (N.Y. 2005)

Summary

dismissing nonparty's motion for reargument because nonparty has no right to intervene in criminal appeal, despite its claim that it had a direct interest in the outcome of the appeal

Summary of this case from People v. Smakaj

Opinion

329.

Decided May 3, 2005.

Motion for permission to intervene in and for reargument of an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered November 17, 2003 ( see 4 NY3d 341).

Appellate Advocates, New York City ( Lynn W.L. Fahey of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hines, District Attorney, Brooklyn ( Shulamit Rosenblum of counsel), for respondent.

Levine Sullivan Koch Schulz, L.L.P., New York City ( David A. Schulz, Robert Penchina and Alia L. Smith of counsel), and Cameron Stracher, Westport, Connecticut, for proposed intervenor.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO, READ and R.S. SMITH concur.


OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

The motion by nonparty Hybrid Films, Inc. to intervene should be denied and the motion for reargument dismissed.

Hybrid moves to intervene in the appeal of this criminal action and for reargument, contending that it had no notice of the appeal, in whose outcome it asserts that it had a direct interest. The Criminal Procedure Law provides no mechanism for a nonparty to intervene or be joined in a criminal case. A nonparty wishing to supplement the arguments made to a court on an issue of law may seek leave to appear as amicus curiae. In this case, the Court of Appeals filing setting forth the issues under consideration was available to the public and published, together with a solicitation for amici, in the New York Law Journal. Since Hybrid has no right to intervene in this criminal appeal, its motion for reargument should be dismissed on the ground that Hybrid was not a party to the appeal. In any event, we note that each of Hybrid's arguments respecting the journalist's privilege was advanced by the People and that all of Hybrid's affidavits and memoranda of law submitted below, while not included in defendant's appendix, were contained in the original court file before this Court.

Motion to intervene denied and motion for reargument dismissed in a memorandum.


Summaries of

People v. Combest

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 3, 2005
4 N.Y.3d 859 (N.Y. 2005)

dismissing nonparty's motion for reargument because nonparty has no right to intervene in criminal appeal, despite its claim that it had a direct interest in the outcome of the appeal

Summary of this case from People v. Smakaj
Case details for

People v. Combest

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES COMBEST…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 3, 2005

Citations

4 N.Y.3d 859 (N.Y. 2005)
798 N.Y.S.2d 350
831 N.E.2d 407

Citing Cases

People v. Smakaj

They do not permit the victim to become a party to the criminal prosecution. Indeed, "[t]he Criminal…

People v. Nasser

The Court further adopted a tripartite test whereby "discovery may only be ordered if the litigant…