People v Ramos (Erick)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Ramos (Erick) 2012 NY Slip Op 52293(U) Decided on December 10, 2012 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : LaCAVA, J.P., IANNACCI and LaSALLE, JJ
2011-2474 OR CR.

The People of the State of New York, Appellant,

against

Erick S. Ramos, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Justice Court of the Town of Goshen, Orange County (Kimberly C. Van Hasster, J.), issued May 20, 2011. The order granted defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument.


ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is denied, the accusatory instrument is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Justice Court for all further proceedings.

Defendant was charged with making a punishable false written statement in violation of Penal Law § 210.45. Prior to the commencement of trial, the Justice Court granted defendant's oral motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute after the People had stated that they were not ready to proceed to trial. As the court had no statutory or inherent authority to dismiss the criminal proceeding for failure to prosecute (see People v Douglass, 60 NY2d 194, 206 [1983]; People v Roman, 35 Misc 3d 133[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50697[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]; People v Murchinson, 31 Misc 3d 146[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50943[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011]), defendant's motion should have been denied.

Accordingly, the order is reversed, defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument is denied, the accusatory instrument is reinstated and the matter is remitted to the [*2]Justice Court for all further proceedings.

LaCava, J.P., Iannacci and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: December 10, 2012

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.