People v. Ramos, 223 A.D.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Ramos, 223 A.D.2d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clay v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.
Nev. · 2013 · confidence medium
Id. (explaining that "it may fairly 12 be said that the integrity of [the grand jury] has been impaired" "[w]hen the District Attorney's instructions to the Grand Jury are so incomplete or misleading as to substantially undermine [its] essential function"); People v. Ramos, 637 N.Y.S.2d 93, 93 (App. Div. 1996) (dismissing indictment because grand jury determination "hinged upon the definition" of a term and "the prosecutor's instructions to the Grand Jury. . . did not provide it 'with enough information to enable it intelligently to decide whether a crime has been committed and to determine wh…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clay v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark
Nev. · 2013 · confidence medium
Id. (explaining that “it may fairly be said that the integrity of [the grand jury] has been impaired” “[w]hen the District Attorney’s instructions to the Grand Jury are so incomplete or misleading as to substantially undermine [its] essential function”); People v. Ramos, 637 N.Y.S.2d 93, 93 (App. Div. 1996) (dismissing indictment because grand jury determination “hinged upon the definition” of a term and “the prosecutor’s instructions to the Grand Jury ... did not provide it ‘with enough information to enable it intelligently to decide whether a crime has been committed and…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Pinkoski
nycountyct · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
For the foregoing reasons, and due deliberation having been had, the Court finds that due to the absence of instruction as to two crucial elements of the counts of this indictment, the integrity of this Grand Jury proceeding was impaired to the prejudice of the defendant, and that the indictment herein must be dismissed (CPL 210.35 [5]; see also, People v Ramos, 223 AD2d 495 , lv denied 87 NY2d 1024 ; People v Doe, 178 Misc 2d 908 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Doe
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
(See, People v Newspaper & Mail Deliverers’ Union, 170 Misc 2d 790, 799 [indictment charging labor union with enterprise corruption dismissed for failure to instruct Grand Jury on meaning of certain labor law terms, when their meaning is “not intuitively obvious”]; see also, People v Ramos, 223 AD2d 495 [indictment dismissed for failure to define “residence” regarding charge of false voter registration and related crimes]; People v Jones, 157 Misc 2d 45 [indictment dismissed for failure to explicate “causation” and “proximate cause” when victim died of pneumonia two years aft…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Benjamin Ramos
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jan 30, 1996.
223 A.D.2d 495
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.), entered November 9, 1994, which dismissed, with leave to re-present, the indictment charging defendant with offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (three counts), falsifying business records in the first degree (three counts), false voter registration, and illegal voting (four counts), unanimously affirmed.

While determination of the charges herein by the Grand Jury hinged upon the definition of the term "residence”, the prosecutor’s instructions to the Grand Jury in that regard did not provide it "with enough information to enable it intelligently to decide whether a crime has been committed and to determine whether there exists legally sufficient evidence to establish the material elements of the crime” (People v Calbud, Inc., 49 NY2d 389, 394-395). Thus, the indictment was properly dismissed, with leave to re-present, on the ground that defendant was prejudiced by the impairment of the integrity of the Grand Jury proceedings (CPL 210.35 [5]; see, People v Darby, 75 NY2d 449, 455). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli, Williams and Tom, JJ.