People v Gumbs (Awan)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Gumbs (Awan) 2013 NY Slip Op 51513(U) Decided on September 5, 2013 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 5, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., IANNACCI and LaSALLE, JJ
2012-526 S CR.

The People of the State of New York, Appellant,

against

Awan J. Gumbs, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Justice Court of the Town of Southampton, Suffolk County (Andrea H. Schiavoni, J.), entered February 27, 2012. The order granted defendant's oral motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument.


ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Justice Court of the Town of Southampton to set forth its findings of fact, conclusions of law and the reasons for its determination, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim.

Defendant was charged with resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30) and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree (Penal Law § 195.05). After a jury was sworn, the Justice Court indicated that the People should proceed with an opening statement. Instead, the People requested a continuance because their police witness had gone on vacation and was out of the country. Defendant's counsel objected and orally moved to dismiss for failure to "proceed." The Justice Court granted the motion and dismissed the information.

The sparse record does not permit intelligent appellate review of the issues presented in [*2]this case. Consequently, the matter is remitted to the Justice Court to set forth its findings of fact, conclusions of law and the reasons for its determination, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim.

Nicolai, P.J., Iannacci and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: September 05, 2013

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.