From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Read

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 30, 2010
71 A.D.3d 1167 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2009-00076.

March 30, 2010.

Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Rockland County (Bartlett, J.), dated December 17, 2008, which granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment, with leave to represent the matter to a new grand jury.

Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel), for appellant.

Michael G. Paul, New City, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: Prudenti, P.J., Balkin, Leventhal and Austin, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to dismiss the indictment is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Rockland County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

Dismissal of an indictment is appropriate where the grand jury proceeding is defective in that it fails "to conform to the requirements of [CPL article 190] to such degree that the integrity thereof is impaired and prejudice to the defendant may result" (CPL 210.35; see CPL 210.20 [c]). As the dismissal of an indictment is a drastic and exceptional remedy ( see People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 363, cert denied 416 US 905; People v Alston, 23 AD3d 487, 488), dismissal "should thus be limited to those instances where prosecutorial wrongdoing, fraudulent conduct or errors potentially prejudice the ultimate decision reached by the Grand Jury" ( People v Huston, 88 NY2d 400, 409; see People v Ramirez, 298 AD2d 413).

Here, the grand jury proceeding did not fail to conform to the requirements of CPL article 190 to such a degree that the integrity thereof was impaired and, in view of the sufficiency of the admissible proof which supports the indictment, even if some of the testimony elicited was inadmissible, no prejudice to the defendant could have resulted therefrom ( see CPL 210.20 [c]; 210.35 [5]; People v Huston, 88 NY2d at 409; People v Kennedy, 69 AD3d 881, 882; People v Moffitt, 20 AD3d 687, 689).

In light of the foregoing, we need not address the People's remaining contentions.


Summaries of

People v. Read

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 30, 2010
71 A.D.3d 1167 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

People v. Read

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. DAVID READ, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 30, 2010

Citations

71 A.D.3d 1167 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 2820
896 N.Y.S.2d 912

Citing Cases

Read v. Thompson

On December 17, 2008, the County Court granted Petitioner's motion to dismiss the Indictment, but the…

People v. Wu

In any event, upon our review of the record, the police officer's purported improper bolstering testimony did…