Case Detail
CitationPeople v. Arbas, 924 N.Y.S.2d 671 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
CrimeNon-violent, other
StateNY
Pros. First NameUKN
Pros. Last NameUKN
FederalNo
Trial Year2010
BodyAppeals court
OpinionThe New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that the integrity of the grand jury proceeding was not so impaired as to warrant dismissal of the indictment; and the trial court was within its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to disqualify the District Attorney's office. "[W]e are not persuaded that the integrity of the grand jury proceeding was sufficiently impaired to warrant dismissal of the indictment. Such drastic relief is available when ‘prosecutorial wrongdoing, fraudulent conduct or errors potentially prejudice the ultimate decision reached by the [g]rand [j]ury' [citations omitted]. Here, while some inadmissible hearsay evidence was elicited by the prosecutor from three witnesses, the proceeding otherwise substantially conformed with the requirements of CPL article 190. In addition, legally sufficient independent proof existed to support the indictment and, thus, defendant was not prejudiced by the hearsay testimony [citation omitted]. . .Next, we do not agree with defendant that County Court erred by denying his motion to disqualify the District Attorney's office for a conflict of interest based upon an Assistant District Attorney's representation of him in a prior civil lawsuit he had brought against his father. The removal of a prosecutor is appropriate 'to protect a defendant from actual prejudice arising from a demonstrated conflict of interest or a substantial risk of an abuse of confidence' [citations omitted], but the defendant must establish more than a mere appearance of impropriety [citations omitted]. Here, the Assistant District Attorney who had previously represented defendant had minimal involvement in only the early stages of defendant's prosecution and none of the information elicited at trial about the prior lawsuit indicated that any abuse of confidence or use of privileged information had occurred [citations omitted]."
Determination Year2011
Misconduct TypeT
C/S EffectNo effect
Pros. Misc. ReportedUKN
SanctionsUKN
Sanction TypeUKN
Web linkhttp://leagle.com/decision/In%20NYCO%2020110609317.xml/PEOPLE%20v.%20ARBAS