From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Nieblas v. Kings Cty. Dist Attorney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 28, 1994
209 A.D.2d 703 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 28, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant, who was convicted of various counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance after a jury trial, sought to compel the Kings County District Attorney to prosecute for perjury police officers who testified at his trial and at a suppression hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding.

It is well-settled that the decision whether to prosecute is entrusted to the sole discretion of the District Attorney (see, Matter of Holtzman v. Hellenbrand, 130 A.D.2d 749; see also, People v. Di Falco, 44 N.Y.2d 482; Johnson v. Town of Colonie, 102 A.D.2d 925; People v. Mackell, 47 A.D.2d 209, affd 40 N.Y.2d 59; Matter of Hassan v. Magistrate's Ct., 20 Misc.2d 509). Therefore, the dismissal of the proceeding was proper. Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Nieblas v. Kings Cty. Dist Attorney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 28, 1994
209 A.D.2d 703 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Matter of Nieblas v. Kings Cty. Dist Attorney

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of PEDRO NIEBLAS, Appellant, v. KINGS COUNTY DISTRICT…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 28, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 703 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
619 N.Y.S.2d 675

Citing Cases

Sedore v. Epstein

In New York, the authority to prosecute a criminal offense generally rests with the local district attorney (…

Mullaney v. Brown

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. It is well settled that the decision whether to prosecute…