Case ID: misc3d_10/html/0094-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[810 NYS2d 788]
    The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Gary Schaum, Respondent.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
    December 2, 2005
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Vincent J. Messina, Jr., Town Attorney, Islip (Robert L. Cicale of counsel), for appellant. Murray & Hopkins, Hauppauge (Mark A. Murray of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Appeal unanimously dismissed.

Defendant was charged with a violation of Islip Town Code § 35-3 (D) which prohibits engines from creating noise disturbances. After a trial, the court granted one branch of defendant’s posttrial motion and dismissed the case. Although the People’s appeal was dismissed by this court (People v Schaum, 2001 NY Slip Op 40426[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2001]), the Court of Appeals reversed and remitted the case to this court for further proceedings (People v Schaum, 98 NY2d 667 [2002]). Upon remittal, this court reversed the order appealed from and remitted the matter to the District Court for a determination of the remaining branches of defendant’s dismissal motion and, if necessary, a determination as to whether the People established defendant’s guilt and disproved the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Schaum, NYLJ, Dec. 24, 2002, at 21, col 4 [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists]). While the case was winding its way through the appellate process, the trial judge was elected to the Supreme Court. Upon remittal, the case was assigned to a different District Court Judge who denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and found that the People failed to establish defendant’s guilt and disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt.

The right of the People to appeal in a criminal case is statutorily determined (see People v Dunn, 4 NY3d 495 [2005]; People v Laing, 79 NY2d 166, 170 [1992]; Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59, 63 [1975]), and the statute conferring such right must be strictly construed (see People v Brummel, 136 AD2d 322, 324 [1988]; see also People v Santos, 64 NY2d 702 [1984]; People v Johnson, 103 AD2d 754 [1984]). Absent a specific statute granting the People the right to appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal (see People v Doe, 170 AD2d 690 [1991]; People v Reap, 68 AD2d 964 [1979]). Because CPL 450.20, which sets forth the instances when the People may appeal to an intermediate appellate court, does not authorize an appeal from an order acquitting a defendant, this appeal must be dismissed (see People v Dunn, 4 NY3d 495 [2005], supra; People v Myers, 226 AD2d 557 [1996]). We note that a direct appeal is not the proper method for a challenge to the authority of the judge who issued the order of dismissal (People v Dunn, 4 NY3d 495 [2005], supra).

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.