From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Clute v. McGill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 20, 1997
229 A.D.2d 70 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

March 20, 1997

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department.

Penelope D. Clute, District Attorney of Clinton County, Plattsburgh, petitioner pro se.


Between July 28, 1995 and August 4, 1995, Mark Lavarnway, Terry Bordeau and Willard A. Stone, Jr. were each charged by criminal information filed in Justice Court of the Town of Schuyler Falls with petit larceny and conspiracy in the sixth degree. Lavarnway and Bordeau were further charged with the local code violation of scavenging.

On August 9, 1995, petitioner put Justice Court on notice that she intended to present the case to the Grand Jury. Shortly thereafter, a three-count indictment was returned charging the criminal defendants with the misdemeanors of petit larceny and official misconduct, and the violation of scavenging. Defendants were arraigned in County Court.

On February 8, 1996, defendants moved to transfer the indictment from County Court to Justice Court. Respondent Clinton County Judge, relying on N.Y. Constitution, article VI, § 19 (b), concluded that he was empowered to effectuate such transfer and granted defendants' motion. Petitioner thereafter commenced the instant proceeding seeking a writ of prohibition against the County Judge to prohibit such transfer and against the two Justices of the Town of Schuyler Falls to bar them from any further disposition.

Relying upon CPL 170.20, which divests a local criminal court of jurisdiction over a misdemeanor charge upon the filing of an indictment charging the same crime in a superior court, petitioner contends that once Justice Court lost jurisdiction County Court was without authority to reinstate the matter. "The People," petitioner argues, "have a clear legal right to prosecute the instant misdemeanor offense by [i]ndictment in Clinton County Court."

While petitioner has, no doubt, seized upon the "appropriate procedural vehicle" for the assertion of her claim ( Matter of Pirro v. Angiolillo, 89 N.Y.2d 351, 355), "the extraordinary and infrequently permitted remedy of prohibition, which serves to restrain an officer from acting without or in excess of jurisdiction, will not lie absent a showing of a clear legal right to the relief requested" ( Matter of Adelphi Univ. v. Board of Regents, 229 A.D.2d 36, 38). N.Y. Constitution, article VI, § 19 (b) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "The county court may transfer any action or proceeding, except a criminal action or proceeding involving a felony prosecuted by indictment * * * to any court, other than the supreme court, having jurisdiction of the subject matter within the county provided that such other court has jurisdiction over the classes of persons named as parties" (emphasis supplied). Hence, were we to support petitioner's effort to limit the constitutional authority of County Court by adopting an expansive reading of CPL 170.20, we would "additionally and precedentially strengthen the procedural hand of one party (the prosecutor), not only over defendants but especially over neutral Magistrates, who should equally oversee both contending parties before courts" ( Matter of Pirro v. Angiolillo, supra, at 361 [Bellacosa, J., dissenting]).

We hold that while the People have a clear legal right to present misdemeanor charges to a Grand Jury in order to prosecute crimes by indictment "in a superior court" (CPL 170.20), if the indictment returned does not charge a felony County Court has the constitutional authority to transfer the matter to any Justice Court having jurisdiction. Therefore, although Justice Court here initially lost jurisdiction by way of the ensuing indictment ( see, People v. Brancoccio, 83 N.Y.2d 638; Matter of Molea v. Marasco, 64 N.Y.2d 718; Matter of Cummings v. Koppell, 212 A.D.2d 11, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 702), it properly regained jurisdiction by way of a constitutionally authorized transfer ( see, N.Y. Const, art VI, § 19 [b]; see also, People v Thompson, 70 A.D.2d 968; Spycher v. Andrew, 55 A.D.2d 715).

MERCURE, J.P., WHITE, CASEY and SPAIN, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Clute v. McGill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 20, 1997
229 A.D.2d 70 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Matter of Clute v. McGill

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of PENELOPE D. CLUTE, as District Attorney of the County of…

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

Date published: Mar 20, 1997

Citations

229 A.D.2d 70 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
655 N.Y.S.2d 201

Citing Cases

People v. Powell

Article VI, § 19 (b) of the New York State Constitution authorizes the County Court to transfer "any action…

People v. Simmons

Therefore, Counts 13–18 shall stand.The Court having dismissed all of the felony counts of the indictment,…