People v. Viszokai, 99 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Viszokai, 99 A.D.2d 519 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
59 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Loiseau
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
The error was not harmless, as the proof of the defendant’s guilt was not overwhelming and the questioning was highly damaging to the defendant’s credibility, the jury’s assessment of which, compared to that of the complainant, was the central issue in the case (see People v Glenn, 52 NY2d at 881 ; People v Irvine, 52 AD3d 866, 868-869 [2008]; People v Ali, 146 AD2d at 637 ; People v Wagman, 99 AD2d 519, 520 [1984]; cf. People v Ackley, 235 AD2d 633, 634 [1997]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Lopez
N.Y. App. Div. · 1985 · confidence medium
"An unbroken line of authority, only recently affirmed (People v Fuller, 108 AD2d 822 ), holds that 'in cases where justification is the central issue to be decided’ an 'error [in the justification charge] warrants a new trial in the interests of justice’ (People v Fuller, 74 AD2d 879 ; see, People v Macon, supra; People v Long, supra; People v Wagman, supra, at p 520; People v Jenkins, 93 AD2d 868, 869 ; People v La Susa, 87 AD2d 578 ; People v Flores, 75 AD2d 649 ; People v Davis, 74 AD2d 607 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Swinson
N.Y. App. Div. · 1985 · confidence medium
An unbroken line of authority, only recently affirmed (People v Fuller, 108 AD2d 822 ), holds that “in cases where justification is the central issue to be decided” an “error [in the justification charge] warrants a new trial in the interests of justice” (People v Fuller, 74 AD2d 879 ; see, People v Macon, supra; People v Long, supra; People v Wagman, supra, at p 520; People v Jenkins, 93 AD2d 868, 869 ; People v La Susa, 87 AD2d 578 ; People v Flores, 75 AD2d 649 ; People v Davis, 74 AD2d 607 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Garcia
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
(Cf. People v Jordan, docket No. ONO40372, Crim Ct, NY County, 1981, Fried, J.) The harm caused by the offense is grave because defendant’s possession of a handgun contributes to the epidemic of illegal possession of such weapons 4 about which the public is “up in arms.” (CPL 210.40 [1] [b].) A dismissal in this case would impact unfavorably on this public policy and would tend to defeat the safety and welfare of the community (CPL 210.40 [1] [h]; see, People v Viszokai, 99 AD2d 519 ; People v Andrew, 78 AD2d 683 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Finley
N.Y. App. Div. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
The crimes charged are serious and review of the record reveals no compelling factor “clearly demonstrating that conviction or prosecution of the defendant upon such indictment * * * would constitute or result in injustice” (CPL 210.40, subd 1; see People v Viszokai, 99 AD2d 519 ; People v Belkota, 50 AD2d 118, 122 ; cf. People v Rickert, 58 NY2d 122 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Tibor Viszokai
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 16, 1984.
99 A.D.2d 519
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered April 18,1983, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, in the furtherance of justice, an indictment charging him with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Order reversed, on the law, motion denied, indictment reinstated, and matter remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings. An indictment may be dismissed in the furtherance of justice when “such dismissal is required as a matter of judicial discretion by the existence of some compelling factor, consideration or circumstances clearly demonstrating that conviction or prosecution of the defendant upon such indictment or count would constitute or result in injustice” (CPL 210.40, subd 1). CPL 210.40 (subd 1) sets forth the following criteria for the court to consider, in determining whether a “compelling factor” exists: “(a) the seriousness and circumstances of the offense; (b) the extent of harm caused by the offense; (c) the evidence of guilt, whether admissible or inadmissible at trial; (d) the history, character and condition of the defendant; (e) any exceptionally serious misconduct of law enforcement personnel in the investigation, arrest and prosecution of the defendant; (f) the purpose and effect of imposing upon the defendant a sentence authorized for the offense; (g) the impact of a dismissal upon the confidence of the public in the criminal justice system; (h) the impact of a dismissal on the safety or welfare of the community; (i) where the court deems it appropriate, the attitude of the complainant or victim with respect to the motion; (j) any other relevant fact indicating that a judgment of conviction would serve no useful purpose”. In reviewing the record in the instant matter we find that defendant has not shown the existence of any “compelling factor” which would warrant a dismissal of the indictment. Although we are aware that defendant has no prior record and that the first trial ended in a mistrial because of the jury’s inability to reach a verdict, those factors are insufficient to justify the dismissal. Further, in view of the fact that the crime charged involved a loaded firearm, the impact of the crime on the public interest weighed heavily against the dismissal. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the dismissal in the absence of any showing of compelling circumstances. Accordingly, the indictment must be reinstated and the matter remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings. (See People v Kirby, 92 AD2d 848; People v Andrew, 78 AD2d 683.) Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.