New York Law Review

People v. D’Alessandro, 73 N.Y.2d 214 (1989): Sufficiency of Indictment – Factual Allegations and Timeliness of Appeal

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

People v. D’Alessandro, 73 N.Y.2d 214 (1989)

An indictment is sufficient if it contains factual allegations affording the accused notice of the charges to allow for adequate defense preparation and contains a plain and concise statement of the factual elements constituting the charged crime.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed the sufficiency of an indictment and the timeliness of the People’s appeal. The court held that the indictment, which used the word “handgun” to describe the weapon used in the robbery, provided sufficient factual support for the charges of robbery and criminal use of a firearm. The court also determined that the People’s appeal was timely because it was filed within 30 days of the Supreme Court’s superseding order, which reaffirmed its prior decision after reargument. The court used this opportunity to urge the legislature to clarify an ambiguity in CPL 460.10.

Facts

Defendant was indicted on multiple counts, including robbery and criminal use of a firearm. Each of these counts referenced a “handgun”. The trial court dismissed four counts of the indictment. The People moved for reargument, but the Supreme Court adhered to its original decision. The People then appealed to the Appellate Division, which reversed the trial court’s dismissal.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court initially dismissed four counts of the indictment. The People’s motion for reargument was denied, with the Supreme Court adhering to its prior decision. The People appealed to the Appellate Division, which reversed the Supreme Court’s dismissal. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

  1. Whether the indictment provided sufficient factual support for the charges of robbery and criminal use of a firearm by using the word “handgun.”
  2. Whether the People’s appeal to the Appellate Division was timely, given that it was filed within 30 days of the Supreme Court’s order adhering to its original decision after reargument.

Holding

  1. Yes, because the term “handgun” constituted sufficient factual support for the element of the crimes charged as well as a sufficient description of the implement allegedly displayed by the defendant.
  2. Yes, because the Supreme Court’s order granting the People’s motion for reargument and adhering to its prior decision was a superseding order, making the People’s notice of appeal timely.

Court’s Reasoning

Regarding the sufficiency of the indictment, the Court of Appeals found that using the term “handgun” provided adequate factual support for the charges. The court referenced CPL 200.50 [7] [a] and [b], which outlines the requirements for the content of an indictment, and emphasized that “handgun” sufficiently described the implement allegedly displayed by the defendant. The court reasoned that the indictment provided the defendant with adequate notice of the charges against him, enabling him to prepare a defense.

Regarding the timeliness of the appeal, the court determined that the Supreme Court’s order upon reargument, which reaffirmed its initial decision, constituted a superseding order. Citing prior case law (People v Collier, 131 AD2d 864; Marine Midland Bank v Fisher, 85 AD2d 905) and a practice treatise (Siegel, NY Prac §254), the court clarified that a superseding order restarts the time to appeal. Therefore, the People’s appeal, filed within 30 days of the superseding order, was timely.

The court took the opportunity to “invite the attention of the Legislature to an apparent ambiguity in CPL 460.10,” reiterating a concern previously expressed in People v Coaye, 68 NY2d 857, 858.

More ARTICLES