People v Smith (Glenn)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Smith (Glenn) 2016 NY Slip Op 51218(U) Decided on August 16, 2016 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on August 16, 2016
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., IANNACCI and TOLBERT, JJ.
2012-963 OR CR

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Glenn S. Smith, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Goshen, Orange County (Thomas J. Cione, J.), rendered April 11, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. By decision and order dated March 10, 2014, this court reversed the judgment, on the law, and dismissed the accusatory instrument (People v Smith, 43 Misc 3d 71 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2014]). By order dated June 23, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and order of this court and remitted the matter for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion (People v Smith, NY3d , 2016 NY Slip Op 04973 [2016]).

ORDERED that, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, the appeal is dismissed.

The Court of Appeals has determined that defendant's failure to file an affidavit of error requires the dismissal of the appeal. We note that defendant has moved for a writ of error coram nobis on the ground that his counsel was ineffective in failing to file such an affidavit (see People v Andrews, 23 NY3d 605 [2014]; People v Syville, 15 NY3d 391, 394-398 [2010]; People v Bartholomew, 31 Misc 3d 698, 703 [Broome County Ct 2011]; cf. CPL 460.30 [1] [a]), and the motion is being granted simultaneously herewith (People v Smith, 2016 NY Slip Op [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2016]).

Iannacci and Tolbert, JJ., concur.

Nicolai, P.J., taking no part.


Decision Date: August 16, 2016

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.