From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. McConney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 21, 1997
235 A.D.2d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

January 21, 1997.

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated October 31, 1994, which, upon renewal, granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the evidence presented to the Grand Jury was legally insufficient.

Before: Rosen-blatt, J. P., Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the evidence presented to the Grand Jury was legally insufficient is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings.

The Police Laboratory Analysis Report regarding the results of the ballistics examination of the gun constituted legally sufficient evidence ( see, People v Rodriguez, 235 AD2d 504 [decided herewith]).

The Police Laboratory Analysis Report regarding the controlled substances the defendant was charged with possessing constituted legally sufficient evidence, for reasons stated in People v Washington ( 228 AD2d 23 [decided herewith]).

Friedmann, J., dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum: I would affirm for reasons stated in my dissenting memorandum in People v Lopez ( 235 AD2d 496 [decided herewith]).


Summaries of

People v. McConney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 21, 1997
235 A.D.2d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. McConney

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. TRISH McCONNEY…

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

Date published: Jan 21, 1997

Citations

235 A.D.2d 500 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
652 N.Y.S.2d 986

Citing Cases

People v. Washington

We disagree, and we reverse the order of dismissal. Our holding in this appeal serves as a basis for reversal…