New York Court of Appeals, 1996

People v. Wolf

New York Court of Appeals · Decided January 9, 1996

87 N.Y.2d 909; 640 N.Y.S.2d 432; 663 N.E.2d 588; 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 1

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Cook (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
MIRAN, MICHAEL, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Miran (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Miran (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Urbina v. 26 Court Street Associates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
People v. Fezza (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
People v. Ali (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
People v. Evans (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
People v. Polk (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
People v. Sayavong (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
People v. Lathigee (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the appeal to that Court reinstated, and the case remitted for prosecution of the appeal (see, People v Ramos, 85 NY2d 678).

Defendant was charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees. His motion to suppress the evidence was granted and the indictment was dismissed. The People served a timely notice of appeal but failed, although not without effort, to comply with the Appellate Division, First Department’s rule 600.8 (former [f]) (22 NYCRR 600.8 [former (f)]), requiring them to personally serve their appellate brief on a defendant not represented by counsel. Thus, the People’s motion to the Appellate Division to place the appeal on the Court’s calendar was denied and their appeal was dismissed.

*911This case is directly controlled by this Court’s recent decision in People v Ramos (85 NY2d 678, supra) wherein we invalidated the First Department’s rule. For the reasons stated in Ramos, the People here were under no obligation to personally serve defendant with their appellate brief and, thus, the dismissal of the People’s appeal on that ground should be reversed.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed and case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.