From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lush

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 1996
234 A.D.2d 991 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

December 30, 1996.

Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Ontario County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following

Present — Lawton, J.P., Fallon, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.


County Court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment without first conducting a hearing to determine whether defendant was denied due process of law by preindictment delay ( see, People v Lesiuk, 81 NY2d 485, 490; People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152, 159; People v Vasquez, 79 AD2d 621; People v Marshall, 72 AD2d 799, 800). Under the circumstances of this case, a hearing must be conducted to determine whether the 14-month delay in arresting and indicting defendant was unreasonable or was "`a determination made in good faith to defer commencement of the prosecution for further investigation or for other sufficient reasons'" ( People v Lesiuk, supra, at 490, quoting People v Singer, 44 NY2d 241, 254). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J." Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.)


Summaries of

People v. Lush

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 1996
234 A.D.2d 991 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Lush

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DAVID LUSH, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 30, 1996

Citations

234 A.D.2d 991 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
652 N.Y.S.2d 188

Citing Cases

People v. Clark

Here, the County Court failed to appropriately balance the requisite factors and improperly denied, without a…

People v. Santmyer

Similarly, the court erred in dismissing the indictment on the ground of preindictment delay, a claim…