People v Dejesus-Vazquez
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
People v Dejesus-Vazquez 2020 NY Slip Op 32064(U) May 2, 2020 County Court, Orange County Docket Number: 2017-038 Judge: Nicholas DeRosa Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] COUNTY COURT : ORANGE COUNTY STATE OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------x THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IND. NO. 2017-038 INDEX NO. DffZ-1.~ -againstEGBERTO DEJESUS-VAZQUEZ, .Zcff- DECISION AND ORDER Defendant. -----------------------------------"-X DE ROSA, N. Defendant is charged in this indictment with the crimes of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, a Class B Felony, in violation of §220.16(1); Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree, a Class A Misdemeanor, in violation of §220.03 and Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia in the Second Degree, A Class A Misdemeanor, in violation of §220.50(3) of the Penal Law of the State of New York. Defendant has moved for certain pre-trial relief which the Court, having considered: 1) the defendant's notice of motion and affirmation, submitted by Richard N. Lentine, Esq. 2) the People's affirmation in response, submitted by Matthew E. Healy, Esq., Senior Assistant District Attorney, Orange County District Attorney's Office, 3) Sur Reply Affirmation submitted by Richard N. Lentine, Esq., and 4) the transcript of Grand Jury proceedings, decides as follows. -1- _____ __________ .,., [* 2] _._.._... ------- MOTION TO INSPECT GRAND JURY MINUTES Defendant's motion is granted to the extent that the Court has reviewed the minutes of the Grand Jury in camera. The Court finds that release of the minutes is not necessary to the determination of this motion. The Court further finds that the indictment is based upon legally sufficient evidence and that the Grand Jury was properly instructed with respect to the applicable law. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION Defendant's motion is granted to the extent that the information was previously provided or inspection was consented to in the People's Voluntary Disclosure Form and/or Affirmation in Response. In all other respects, defendant's application is denied. MOTION TO CONTROVERT SEARCH WARRANT Defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence seized based upon the search warrant is denied without a hearing. The Court has reviewed the warrant in this case and finds that the s~pporting affidavit sets forth sufficient facts to establish probable cause to believe that contraband would be found in the premises searched. Further, the premises to be searched were specifically and adequately identified in the warrant. Therefore, the warrant is proper on its face. -2- [* 3] MOTION FOR A SANDOVAL AND VENTIMIGLIA HEARING Defendant's motion is granted to the extent that a hearing is hereby ordered which will be held to determine which, if any, bad acts or convictions may be used as impeachment in the event that the defendant elects to testify at trial. The Court will also order a hearing to determine, which, if any, bad acts or convictions may be used as evidence in the People's direct case. The District Attorney is ordered to disclose, in accordance with CPL Section 240.43, any and all acts which he intends to use for purposes of impeaching defendant at trial, as well as any and all acts and/or convictions to be presented as evidence in chief. MOTION FOR BRADY MATERIAL Defendant's motion is granted to the extent that the District Attorney is directed to disclose to defendant any and all documents, materials and/or information, if any, required to be disclosed pursuant to Brady v. Maryland. MOTION FOR RECUSAL Defendant moves for recusal of the Orange County District Attorney's Office on the ground that the District Attorney represented the defendant in 2013 on an unrelated federal case prior to his election. Removal is warranted only when necessary to protect a defendant from actual prejudice arising from a conflict of interest or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence. -3- [* 4] People v. Holmes, 117 AD2d 480 (3ro Dept 1986); Schumer v. Holtzman, 60 NY2d 46 (1983). There has been no showing of actual prejudice or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence. As a result, defendant's motion for recusal is denied without prejudice. MOTION FOR RESERVATION OF FURTHER MOTIONS CPL Section 255.20 provides defendant with the procedure to make further motions. No order of the Court is necessary at this time. CONFERENCE/HEARING DATE This matter is scheduled for conference on May 11, 2017 . • All parties are directed to be present. The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: Goshen,iMew York May Q , 2017 E N T E R. ~--~ HON. NICHOLAS DE ROSA COUNTY COURT JUDGE TO: DAVID M. HOOVLER, ESQ. ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY Attorney for the People 40 Matthews Street Goshen, New York 10924 RICHARD N. LENTINO, ESQ. Attorney for the Defendant 138 West Main Street Middletown, New York 10940-5616 -4-
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.
