17 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Casey

    95 N.Y.2d 354 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 1,209 times
    In Case, we stated the rule broadly: "A valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution" (id. at 99; citation omitted).
  2. People v. Alejandro

    70 N.Y.2d 133 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 1,120 times
    In People v Alejandro (70 NY2d 133, 138 [1987]), we explained that compared with other accusatory instruments, the "distinguishing characteristic of an information" is "its use as the sole instrument upon which the defendant could be prosecuted... which prompted the Legislature to write in special restrictions applicable to informations...."
  3. People v. Dreyden

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 5243 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 310 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the gravity knife law "distinguishes gravity knives from certain folding knives that cannot readily be opened by gravity or centrifugal force"
  4. People v. Jackson

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 2252 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 211 times
    Interpreting a substantially similar definition of "public place" and concluding that a person is in a public place when located on a highway even if he or she is inside a personal automobile
  5. People v. Jones

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9070 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 199 times
    Dismissing an information alleging disorderly conduct because there was no indication that the defendant "when he stood in the middle of the sidewalk . . . had the intent to or recklessly created a risk of causing 'public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm'"
  6. People v. Roopchand

    107 A.D.2d 35 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)   Cited 225 times

    February 19, 1985 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County, Nicholas Tsoucalas, J. William E. Hellerstein ( Robin Nichinsky of counsel), for appellant. John J. Santucci, District Attorney ( Merri Turk Lasky of counsel), for respondent. Per Curiam. The core question dividing us is whether the trial prosecutor's remarks in summation, which were patently improper and which we unequivocally condemn, entitle the defendant to a new trial. A review of the record convinces the majority of us that reversal

  7. People v. Roopchand

    482 N.E.2d 924 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 222 times

    Decided July 2, 1985 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Nicholas Tsoucalas, J. Robin J. Nichinsky and William E. Hellerstein for appellant. John J. Santucci, District Attorney ( Jeanette Lifschitz of counsel), for respondent. On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed for the reasons stated in the Per Curiam opinion at the Appellate Division ( 107 A.D.2d 35). Concur:

  8. People v. Acosta

    80 N.Y.2d 665 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 157 times
    Explaining that New York’s attempt statute is "more stringent" than the " ‘substantial step’ test ... adopted by [the Second Circuit]"
  9. People v. Hightower

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8960 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 68 times
    In Hightower, the Court reversed the judgment of conviction and dismissed an accusatory instrument, holding that "[a]though the information in th[at] case described the events with enough clarity to provide reasonable cause that defendant was engaged in [the class B misdemeanors charged therein],... it was jurisdictionally defective as to the crime of which defendant was actually convicted—petit larceny," a class A misdemeanor (18 N.Y.3d at 254, 938 N.Y.S.2d 500, 961 N.E.2d 1111).
  10. People v. Flynn

    79 N.Y.2d 879 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 101 times
    In People v. Flynn (79 N.Y.2d 879, supra), the defendant argued that a motor vehicle accident report filed by the complainant with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) was Rosario material based on that agency's law enforcement functions (DMV investigators are designated peace officers [CPL 2.10 (32)], and the DMV is involved in the adjudication of offenses resulting in fines and license revocations).