Case ID: ny-crim_32/html/0284-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Rich, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SUPREME COURT—APP. DIVISION—SECOND DEPARTMENT,
    Dec. 18, 1914.
    THE PEOPLE v. SAMUEL STRAUSS.
    (165 App. Div. 58.)
    (1.) Grand Jury—Inspection of minutes of—Laches.
    A motion for leave to inspect the minutes of the grand jury, made nearly a year after the indictment and arraignment of the defendant, may be denied on the ground of laches.
    (2.) Same—Order denying inspection of minutes not appealable.
    Such a motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and an order denying the same is not appealable.
    Appeal by the defendant, Samuel Strauss, from an order, of the County Court of Nassau county, entered in the office of the clerk of said county on the 25th day of July, 1914.
    
      Charles Pope Caldwell [William H. Robbins with him on the brief], for the appellant.
    
      Charles R. Weeks, Assistant District Attorney [Lewis J. Smith, District Attorney, with him on the brief], for the respondent.
   Rich, J.:

This appeal is from an order of the County Court of Nassau county denying defendant’s motion for leave to inspect the minutes of the grand jury for the purpose of making a motion to dismiss such indictment upon the ground that the facts before that body were not sufficient to warrant the findings of the indictment. The indictment is for seduction under promise of marriage; it was found on October 24,. 1913. The defendant was arraigned on the twenty-ninth of that month, and after pleading not guilty was released,' pending trial, on bail.

The motion was properly denied on the ground of laches, and the order must be affirmed, but there is another reason for the affirmance. The motion was addressed to the sound discretion of the court, the order is not appealable', and we are, therefore, without power to review it. (Matter of Montgomery, 126 App. Div. 72; People v. Wendel, 128 id. 437, 438; People v. Zerillo, 140 id. 902.)

The order of the County Court of Nassau county must be affirmed.

Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Order of the County Court of Nassau county affirmed.