Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1982–1996 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Borrello v. Balbachgreen2 sentences1991We have previously observed that the "mandatory language [of CPL 190.50 (5)] creates what is a ministerial duty on the part of the court to dismiss an indictment obtained in violation of a defendant’s right to appear before the Grand Jury” (Matter of Borrello v Balbach, 112 AD2d 1051, 1052 ). 1988The mandatory language of CPL 190.50 (5) creates "a ministerial duty on the part of the court to dismiss an indictment obtained in violation of a defendant’s right to appear before the Grand Jury” (Matter of Borrello v Balbach, 112 AD2d 1051, 1052 ). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Masongreen1 sentence1996Accordingly, the Court held that, "in view of the mandatory language [of the statute] * * * and the absence of any statutory basis for the expedient solution of a conditional dismissal”, the only proper remedy was outright dismissal of the indictment (supra, at 1053; see also, People v Mason, 176 AD2d 356 [2d Dept 1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 921 ). | 1 | 1 |
People Ex Rel. Flinn v. Barrgreen1 sentence1992By contrast an express bar to resubmission without court authorization is contained in 210.20 (4) which states that "In the absence of authorization to submit or resubmit, the order of dismissal constitutes a bar to any further prosecution of such charge or charges, by indictment or otherwise, in any criminal court within the county.” Clearly, an indictment obtained in violation of this proscription is a nullity (see, People v Reuscher, 89 Misc 2d 160 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 1976]; see also, CPL 190.75 [3] [which provides that when a charge is dismissed by the Grand Jury "it may not again be s | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Massard
green
2 sentences1993Other than that, the “mandatory language of CPL 190.50 (5) creates ’a ministerial duty on the part of the court to dismiss an indictment obtained in violation of a defendant’s right to appear before the Grand Jury’ ” (People v Massard, 139 AD2d 927 [4th Dept 1988]). 1991Thus, where, as here, the defendant has notified the District Attorney of an intent to exercise the right to appear before the Grand Jury and thereafter is denied that right, the only appropriate remedy is outright dismissal of the indictment (see, Matter of Borrello v Balbach, supra; People v Massard, 139 AD2d 927 ; People v Gini, 72 AD2d 752 ). | 2 | 1991–1993 |
People v. Gini
green
2 sentences1991Thus, where, as here, the defendant has notified the District Attorney of an intent to exercise the right to appear before the Grand Jury and thereafter is denied that right, the only appropriate remedy is outright dismissal of the indictment (see, Matter of Borrello v Balbach, supra; People v Massard, 139 AD2d 927 ; People v Gini, 72 AD2d 752 ). 1985This mandatory language creates what is a ministerial duty on the part of the court to dismiss an indictment obtained in violation of a defendant’s right to appear before the Grand Jury (see, People v Gini, 72 AD2d 752, 753 ; Matter of Cohen [Felig], NYLJ, Jan. 12, 1979, p 14, col 3 [2d Dept]; People v Hooker, 113 Misc 2d 159 ). | 2 | 1985–1991 |
People v. Reuscher
neutral
1 sentence1992By contrast an express bar to resubmission without court authorization is contained in 210.20 (4) which states that "In the absence of authorization to submit or resubmit, the order of dismissal constitutes a bar to any further prosecution of such charge or charges, by indictment or otherwise, in any criminal court within the county.” Clearly, an indictment obtained in violation of this proscription is a nullity (see, People v Reuscher, 89 Misc 2d 160 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 1976]; see also, CPL 190.75 [3] [which provides that when a charge is dismissed by the Grand Jury "it may not again be s | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Saunders
green
1 sentence1991Thus, where, as here, the defendant has notified the District Attorney of an intent to exercise the right to appear before the Grand Jury and thereafter is denied that right, the only appropriate remedy is outright dismissal of the indictment (see, Matter of Borrello v Balbach, supra; People v Massard, 139 AD2d 927 ; People v Gini, 72 AD2d 752 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Hooker
neutral
2 sentences1985This mandatory language creates what is a ministerial duty on the part of the court to dismiss an indictment obtained in violation of a defendant’s right to appear before the Grand Jury (see, People v Gini, 72 AD2d 752, 753 ; Matter of Cohen [Felig], NYLJ, Jan. 12, 1979, p 14, col 3 [2d Dept]; People v Hooker, 113 Misc 2d 159 ). 1985This mandatory language creates what is a ministerial duty on the part of the court to dismiss an indictment obtained in violation of a defendant’s right to appear before the Grand Jury (see, People v Gini, 72 AD2d 752, 753 ; Matter of Cohen [Felig], NYLJ, Jan. 12, 1979, p 14, col 3 [2d Dept]; People v Hooker, 113 Misc 2d 159 ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
MTR. OF NOLAN v. Court of Gen. Sessions
green
1 sentence1982Sessions of County of N. Y., 11 NY2d 114 ; Matter of Cardin v Sedita, 53 AD2d 253 ), prohibition should also lie to prohibit prosecution under an indictment obtained in violation of CPL 190.75 (subd 3). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Cardin v. Sedita
green
1 sentence1982Sessions of County of N. Y., 11 NY2d 114 ; Matter of Cardin v Sedita, 53 AD2d 253 ), prohibition should also lie to prohibit prosecution under an indictment obtained in violation of CPL 190.75 (subd 3). | 1 | 1982–1982 |