Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

People v. McDermott

Nassau County District Court

Decided March 11, 1994PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

M. Arthur Eiberson, J.

The defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 170.30 (1) (a) and (g) for an order dismissing the information filed in this action is granted upon the ground that said information is facially insufficient.

In People v Alejandro (70 NY2d 133 [1987]), the Court of Appeals stated that CPL 100.40 (1) establishes three conditions for the facial sufficiency of an information, i.e., (1) conformity with CPL 100.15, which prescribes the form and content for informations, misdemeanor complaints and felony complaints, (2) allegations which provide reasonable cause to…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People v. AlejandroNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  2. People v. . Dunbar Contracting Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1915
  3. Murphy v. . JackNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
  4. People v. CrudupAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  5. People v. AmalfiRochester City Court · 1988

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. People v. PriceCriminal Court of the City of New York · 1998
  2. People v. JamesCriminal Court of the City of New York · 2005
  3. People v. MonroeCriminal Court of the City of New York · 2000
  4. People v. BounvilleCriminal Court of the City of New York · 2011
  5. People v. LewisCriminal Court of the City of New York · 2010

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API