From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 6, 1977
58 A.D.2d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Opinion

June 6, 1977


Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered August 17, 1976, which granted defendant-respondent's oral motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to prosecute. Order reversed, on the law, and indictment reinstated. By statute, a motion to dismiss an indictment must be made in writing and upon notice to the People (CPL 210.45, subd 1; see, also, People v Pichkur, 52 A.D.2d 852; People v Ryan, 42 A.D.2d 869; People v Trottie, 47 A.D.2d 751). The failure to comply with this requirement, unless consented to by the District Attorney, is reversible error (see People v Rao, 53 A.D.2d 904; People v Orr, 53 A.D.2d 634; People v Smith, 53 A.D.2d 652). In this case the District Attorney opposed the application. Furthermore, the basic speedy-trial contention of defendant lacks merit. Martuscello, J.P., Latham, Shapiro and O'Connor, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 6, 1977
58 A.D.2d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)
Case details for

People v. Ray

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. HOWARD RAY, Respondent

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

Date published: Jun 6, 1977

Citations

58 A.D.2d 588 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Citing Cases

People v. Trait

On May 4, 1979, upon an application to resettle the order, the court declared that the dismissal was required…

People v. Randazzo

(See CPL 170.45, 210.45 Crim. Proc., subd 1.) Instead, the People merely requested extra time to submit a…