From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Piasta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 29, 1988
136 A.D.2d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

January 29, 1988

Appeal from the Livingston County Court, Cicoria, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The indictment, in one count, charges that defendant "during 1984" sexually abused a seven-year-old child "on several occasions". County Court properly denied defendant's motions to dismiss the indictment because the motions were made more than 45 days after arraignment and defendant failed to show good cause why he could not have raised these grounds for dismissal within the 45-day motion period (see, CPL 255.20, [3]; People v Key, 45 N.Y.2d 111, 116; People v Selby, 43 N.Y.2d 791, affg on mem at App. Div. 53 A.D.2d 878).

Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the indictment, as limited by the bill of particulars, was not defective for lack of specificity (see, People v Morris, 61 N.Y.2d 290; cf., People v Keindl, 68 N.Y.2d 410, rearg denied 69 N.Y.2d 823). The bill of particulars set forth the approximate time of the offense as April 1984. There was no showing of bad faith by the People in failing to particularize further the dates of the alleged offenses because the seven-year-old victim was unable to relate more specifically when they occurred (see, People v Benjamin R., 103 A.D.2d 663, 666-667).

We find no merit to defendant's other contention that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel.


Summaries of

People v. Piasta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 29, 1988
136 A.D.2d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

People v. Piasta

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL G. PIASTA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jan 29, 1988

Citations

136 A.D.2d 887 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

People v. Henry

Thus, defendant's cross-examination of the complainant opened the door to that line of questioning (see,…

People v. Gonzalez

In our view, this case does not fall within the exceptions enunciated in People v. Pelchat ( 62 N.Y.2d 97,…