§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Appellant,v.Daria N. Epakchi, Respondent.

Brief

11 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Kancharla

    2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 3295 (N.Y. 2014)   Cited 75 times
    In Kancharla, defendants were high-level officers in a corporation that tested construction materials (id. at 299–302, 991 N.Y.S.2d 1, 14 N.E.3d 354).

  2. People v. Key

    45 N.Y.2d 111 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 204 times
    In Key, the defendant was charged, in a simplified traffic information, with operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

  3. People v. Nuccio

    78 N.Y.2d 102 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 139 times
    Rejecting statutory and double jeopardy challenges to renewal of prosecution after the dismissal of a complaint

  4. People C. v. D'Alessandro

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 7669 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 64 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the Appellate Division's decision declining to review the merits of a second coram nobis application

  5. People v. Giles

    73 N.Y.2d 666 (N.Y. 1989)   Cited 46 times

    Argued April 27, 1989 Decided June 13, 1989 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Stanley L. Sklar, J. Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Mary C. Farrington and Mark Dwyer of counsel), for appellant. Richard Joselson and Philip L. Weinstein for respondent. BELLACOSA, J. At the outset of this People's appeal, we address whether the determination below satisfies this court's jurisdictional threshold that the decision was made on the law alone

  6. People v. Aucello

    146 Misc. 2d 417 (N.Y. App. Term 1990)   Cited 38 times
    In People v. Aucello (146 Misc.2d 417) the Appellate Term held that failure to comply with the requirements of CPL 100.25 (2) is a jurisdictional, unamendable and fatal defect which cannot be cured by allowing additional time for compliance, or by commencement of a new prosecution on new pleadings. It is noteworthy, however, that the motions in both Aucello and Thumser (supra) were made prior to the service of any supporting deposition.

  7. People v. Rathgeber

    23 Misc. 3d 130 (N.Y. App. Term 2009)   Cited 10 times

    No. 2007-1888 W CR. April 7, 2009. Motor Vehicles — Speeding — Sufficiency of Long Form Information. Motor Vehicles — Speeding — Dismissal of Information in Interest of Justice. Criminal Procedure Law — § 170.40 (1) (Motion to dismiss information, simplified traffic information, prosecutor's information or misdemeanor complaint; in furtherance of justice). Criminal Procedure Law — § 100.40 (2) (Local criminal court accusatory instruments; sufficiency on face).

  8. People v. Berger

    16 Misc. 3d 133 (N.Y. App. Term 2007)   Cited 11 times

    July 12, 2007. Motor Vehicles — Speeding. Criminal Procedure Law — § 170.10 (3) (Arraignment upon information, simplified traffic information, prosecutor's information or misdemeanor complaint; defendant's presence, defendant's rights, court's instructions and bail matters).

  9. People v. Meisels

    31 Misc. 3d 143 (N.Y. App. Term 2011)   Cited 5 times

    May 12, 2011. Motor Vehicles — Traffic Infractions — Simplified Traffic Information — Defendant's Right to Supporting Deposition. Criminal Procedure Law — § 100.40(2) (Local criminal court accusatory instruments; sufficiency on face).

  10. People v. Rosenfeld

    163 Misc. 2d 982 (N.Y. App. Term 1994)   Cited 10 times

    December 20, 1994 Appeal from the Justice Court of the Town of Wallkill, Orange County, Ray Shoemaker, J. Norman Rosenfeld, appellant pro se. Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney of Orange County, Goshen (Anthony R. LoBiondo of counsel), for respondent. MEMORANDUM. Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, simplified information dismissed and fine remitted. Defendant was issued a simplified traffic information which charged him with speeding

  11. Section 500.13 - Content and form of briefs in normal course appeals

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 500.13

    (a) Content. All briefs shall conform to the requirements of section 500.1 of this Part and contain a table of contents, a table of cases and authorities, questions presented, point headings, and, if necessary, a disclosure statement pursuant to section 500.1(f) of this Part. Such disclosure statement shall be included before the table of contents in the party's principal brief. Appellant's brief shall include a statement showing that the court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and to review