From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Donald Carrington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 15, 2011
81 A.D.3d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 2010-01628.

February 15, 2011.

Appeal by the People from so much of an order of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.), dated January 27, 2010, as granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to dismiss count one of the indictment, charging escape in the second degree.

Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas T. Keating, White Plains, N.Y. (Joseph M. Angiolillo of counsel), for respondent.

Prudenti, P.J., Rivera, Lott and Miller, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

The County Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to dismiss count one of the indictment, charging the defendant with escape in the second degree under Penal Law § 205.10 (1). The People failed to present to the grand jury legally sufficient evidence ( see CPL 190.65) that the defendant escaped from a "[detention [f]acility" within the meaning of Penal Law § 205.00 (1) ( see Matter of Dylan C, 69 AD3d 127, lv granted 14 NY3d 710; People ex rel. Powell v Warden of Kings County Hosp., 73 AD2d 654, 655; People v Tosca, 28 Misc 3d 465, 467-468; cf. People v Carroll, 158 AD2d 704).

The defendant's remaining contention is not properly before this Court on this appeal.


Summaries of

People v. Donald Carrington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 15, 2011
81 A.D.3d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

People v. Donald Carrington

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. DONALD CARRINGTON…

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

Date published: Feb 15, 2011

Citations

81 A.D.3d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 1296
916 N.Y.S.2d 805

Citing Cases

People v. Osorio

Because there was no court order, the Court ruled that Central Booking was not a detention facility within…