From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bratton

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 30, 1985
481 N.E.2d 255 (N.Y. 1985)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In People v Bratton (65 NY2d 675, affg for reasons stated in 103 AD2d 368) and People v Leone (65 NY2d 674, affg for reasons stated in 105 AD2d 757), the Court held that an office policy of not presenting to a Grand Jury cases against absent defendants satisfied the causation requirement contained in the statute (i.e., "a period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of the defendant" [emphasis supplied]; CPL 30.30 [4] [c] [i]; see also, Preiser, Practice Commentaries, supra).

Summary of this case from People v. Smith
See 3 Summaries

Opinion

Argued April 30, 1985

Decided May 30, 1985

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Peter P. Rosato, J.

Peter Paul Insero, Jr., and Stephen J. Pittari for appellant.

Carl A. Vergari, District Attorney ( Maryanne Luciano and Gerald D. Reilly of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed for reasons stated in the opinion by Justice Leon D. Lazer at the Appellate Division ( 103 A.D.2d 368).

Concur: Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges JASEN, MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE and ALEXANDER. Taking no part: Judge TITONE.

Summaries of

People v. Bratton

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 30, 1985
481 N.E.2d 255 (N.Y. 1985)

In People v Bratton (65 NY2d 675, affg for reasons stated in 103 AD2d 368) and People v Leone (65 NY2d 674, affg for reasons stated in 105 AD2d 757), the Court held that an office policy of not presenting to a Grand Jury cases against absent defendants satisfied the causation requirement contained in the statute (i.e., "a period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of the defendant" [emphasis supplied]; CPL 30.30 [4] [c] [i]; see also, Preiser, Practice Commentaries, supra).

Summary of this case from People v. Smith

In People v. Bratton (65 N.Y.2d 675, 491 N.Y.S.2d 623, affirming for reasons stated in 103 A.D.2d 368, 480 N.Y.S.2d 324) and People v. Leone (65 N.Y.2d 674, 491 N.Y.S.2d 623, affirming for reasons stated in 105 A.D.2d 757, 481 N.Y.S.2d 186), the Court held that an office policy of not presenting to a Grand Jury cases against absent defendants satisfied the causation requirement contained in the statute (i.e., "... a period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of the defendant" [emphasis supplied]; CPL 30.30(4)(c); see also, Preiser, supra).

Summary of this case from People v. Smith, JR

In People v Bratton (65 N.Y.2d 675, affd for reasons stated in 103 A.D.2d 368 [2d Dept 1984]), the Court of Appeals impliedly (by affirming based on the Second Department opinion) declined to view Sturgis inflexibly.

Summary of this case from People v. Gelfand
Case details for

People v. Bratton

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. QUENTON BRATTON…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 30, 1985

Citations

481 N.E.2d 255 (N.Y. 1985)
481 N.E.2d 255
491 N.Y.S.2d 623

Citing Cases

People v. Luperon

The description in People v Lewis ( 150 Misc.2d 886) of warrant-processing methods in the New York City…

People v. Vasquez

Indeed this additional uncertainty may well increase the defendant's anxiety, and, once again, frustrate the…

32 Citing Cases