obvious typographical error in New York

2020In doing so, we reject not only our holding in People v Easton, but the wisdom of its warning that to sustain a “reversal of the conviction and hold impermissible an amendment made solely to correct an obvious typographical error in the information” would be to “exalt form over substance” and “enthrone technicality purely for its own sake” ( 307 NY 336, 338 [1954]).

2019We recognize that case law has been inconsistent in this area. [FN1] Prior to the enactment of the Criminal [*3] Procedure Law, the Court of Appeals, in People v Easton (307 NY 336, 338 [1954]), approved a City Court's order granting the People's pretrial motion, over defense counsel's objection, to amend the date of an incident alleged in an information, which charged the defendant with driving while intoxicated, from December 17, 1953 to December 17, 1952, finding that the amendment was "made solely to correct an obvious typographical error in the information." In Easton , as in the case at

2025Accounting for the single obvious typographical error in the felony complaint ( see People v Llewelyn , 221 AD3d 1060, 1060-1061 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1093 [2024]; People v Stuart , 209 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1114 [2023]), we conclude upon our review of the record that the felony complaint is facially sufficient—at minimum with respect to the charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) as decided by the court—inasmuch as the factual part of the felony complaint "contain[s] a statement of the complai

2025Accounting for the single obvious typographical error in the felony complaint ( see People v Llewelyn , 221 AD3d 1060, 1060-1061 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1093 [2024]; People v Stuart , 209 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1114 [2023]), we conclude upon our review of the record that the felony complaint is facially sufficient—at minimum with respect to the charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) as decided by the court—inasmuch as the factual part of the felony complaint "contain[s] a statement of the complai

2025Accounting for the single obvious typographical error in the felony complaint ( see People v Llewelyn , 221 AD3d 1060, 1060-1061 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1093 [2024]; People v Stuart , 209 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1114 [2023]), we conclude upon our review of the record that the felony complaint is facially sufficient—at minimum with respect to the charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) as decided by the court—inasmuch as the factual part of the felony complaint "contain[s] a statement of the complai

2025Accounting for the single obvious typographical error in the felony complaint ( see People v Llewelyn , 221 AD3d 1060, 1060-1061 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1093 [2024]; People v Stuart , 209 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1114 [2023]), we conclude upon our review of the record that the felony complaint is facially sufficient—at minimum with respect to the charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) as decided by the court—inasmuch as the factual part of the felony complaint "contain[s] a statement of the complai

2025Defendant's further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's failure to file a motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds by challenging the propriety of the People's original and supplemental certificates of compliance "survives his guilty plea only insofar as he demonstrates that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that [he] entered the plea because of [his] attorney['s] allegedly poor performance" ( People v Bovee , 221 AD3d 1549, 1549-1550 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 41

2025Defendant's further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's failure to file a motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds by challenging the propriety of the People's original and supplemental certificates of compliance "survives his guilty plea only insofar as he demonstrates that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that [he] entered the plea because of [his] attorney['s] allegedly poor performance" ( People v Bovee , 221 AD3d 1549, 1549-1550 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 41

2025Accounting for the single obvious typographical error in the felony complaint ( see People v Llewelyn , 221 AD3d 1060, 1060-1061 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1093 [2024]; People v Stuart , 209 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1114 [2023]), we conclude upon our review of the record that the felony complaint is facially sufficient—at minimum with respect to the charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) as decided by the court—inasmuch as the factual part of the felony complaint "contain[s] a statement of the complai

2025Accounting for the single obvious typographical error in the felony complaint ( see People v Llewelyn , 221 AD3d 1060, 1060-1061 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1093 [2024]; People v Stuart , 209 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1114 [2023]), we conclude upon our review of the record that the felony complaint is facially sufficient—at minimum with respect to the charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) as decided by the court—inasmuch as the factual part of the felony complaint "contain[s] a statement of the complai

2025Defendant's further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's failure to file a motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds by challenging the propriety of the People's original and supplemental certificates of compliance "survives his guilty plea only insofar as he demonstrates that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that [he] entered the plea because of [his] attorney['s] allegedly poor performance" ( People v Bovee , 221 AD3d 1549, 1549-1550 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 41

2025Defendant's further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's failure to file a motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds by challenging the propriety of the People's original and supplemental certificates of compliance "survives his guilty plea only insofar as he demonstrates that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that [he] entered the plea because of [his] attorney['s] allegedly poor performance" ( People v Bovee , 221 AD3d 1549, 1549-1550 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 41

2025Defendant's further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's failure to file a motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds by challenging the propriety of the People's original and supplemental certificates of compliance "survives his guilty plea only insofar as he demonstrates that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that [he] entered the plea because of [his] attorney['s] allegedly poor performance" ( People v Bovee , 221 AD3d 1549, 1549-1550 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 41

2025Defendant's further contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel's failure to file a motion to dismiss the indictment on statutory speedy trial grounds by challenging the propriety of the People's original and supplemental certificates of compliance "survives his guilty plea only insofar as he demonstrates that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that [he] entered the plea because of [his] attorney['s] allegedly poor performance" ( People v Bovee , 221 AD3d 1549, 1549-1550 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 41

2025Accounting for the single obvious typographical error in the felony complaint ( see People v Llewelyn , 221 AD3d 1060, 1060-1061 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1093 [2024]; People v Stuart , 209 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1114 [2023]), we conclude upon our review of the record that the felony complaint is facially sufficient—at minimum with respect to the charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) as decided by the court—inasmuch as the factual part of the felony complaint "contain[s] a statement of the complai

2025Accounting for the single obvious typographical error in the felony complaint ( see People v Llewelyn , 221 AD3d 1060, 1060-1061 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1093 [2024]; People v Stuart , 209 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2d Dept 2022], lv denied 39 NY3d 1114 [2023]), we conclude upon our review of the record that the felony complaint is facially sufficient—at minimum with respect to the charge of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) as decided by the court—inasmuch as the factual part of the felony complaint "contain[s] a statement of the complai

2017The petition included an alternative address that was admittedly correct and the obvious typographical error could not have materially misled or confused the tenant or hindered the preparation of his defense ( see Oxford Towers Co., LLC v Leites , 41 AD3d 144, 145 [2007]).

2007Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s refusal to consider claimant’s untimely rebuttal to this application (see 12 NYCRR 300.13 [b], [e] [2]; see generally Matter of Doner v Nassau County Police Dept. 24 AD3d 978, 979 [2005]).

2006Taking into account the obvious typographical error in the divestiture order of City Court, we note that the SCI properly contains an offense for which defendant was held for action of the grand jury (see generally People v Zanghi, 79 NY2d 815, 817 [1991]; People v Menchetti, 76 NY2d 473, 477 [1990]; People v Boston, 75 NY2d 585, 588 [1990]).

2006The second offense listed in the SCI was properly joined to the offense for which defendant was held for action of the grand jury, inasmuch as the two offenses “are defined by the same or similar statutory provisions and consequently are the same or similar in law” (People v Clark, 24 AD3d 1225, 1226 [2005]; cf. McClain, 24 AD3d at 1272 ; see generally CPL 200.20 [2] [c]).

2006Taking into account the obvious typographical error in the divestiture order of City Court, we note that the SCI properly contains an offense for which defendant was held for action of the grand jury (see generally People v Zanghi, 79 NY2d 815, 817 [1991]; People v Menchetti, 76 NY2d 473, 477 [1990]; People v Boston, 75 NY2d 585, 588 [1990]).

2006Taking into account the obvious typographical error in the divestiture order of City Court, we note that the SCI properly contains an offense for which defendant was held for action of the grand jury (see generally People v Zanghi, 79 NY2d 815, 817 [1991]; People v Menchetti, 76 NY2d 473, 477 [1990]; People v Boston, 75 NY2d 585, 588 [1990]).