Summary
In People v. Dumas, 68 N.Y.2d 729, 731, 506 N.Y.S.2d 319, 497 N.E.2d 686 (1986), an accusatory instrument that contained “a conclusory statement that the defendant sold marihuana, but [was not] supported by evidentiary facts showing the basis for the conclusion that the substance sold was actually marihuana” was facially insufficient.
Summary of this case from People v. MorrisOpinion
Submitted May 19, 1986
Decided July 8, 1986
Motion by defendants for leave to appeal denied, with $20 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements. The Court of Appeals restates the rule that denial of a motion for leave to appeal is not equivalent to an affirmance and has no precedential value (see, e.g., Matter of Marchant v Mead-Morrison Mfg. Co., 252 N.Y. 284, 297-298 [Cardozo, Ch. J.]; Matter of Calandra v Rothwax, 65 N.Y.2d 897).
Motion by plaintiffs for leave to appeal denied, with $20 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements.