| People v Citriniti, Dominick A. |
| Motion No: 2001-02973 |
| Slip Opinion No: 2006 NYSlipOp 70557(U) |
| Decided on June 19, 2006 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department, Motion Decision |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This motion is uncorrected and is not subject to publication in the Official Reports. |
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
M40997
S/sl
A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.
DAVID S. RITTER
GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN
DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.
|
2001-02973
The People, etc., respondent, v Dominick A. Citriniti, appellant. (Ind. No. 00-00293)
| DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION |
Appeal by Dominick Citriniti from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, rendered February 27, 2001. By decision and order dated March 3, 2003, the matter was remitted to the County Court, Orange County, to hear and determine that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence as the fruit of an unlawful seizure of a cellular telephone, and the appeal was held in abeyance in the interim. The County Court, Orange County, never filed a report. By letter dated April 13, 2006, this District Attorney of Orange County informed this court that the hearing which was directed by the decision and order dated March 3, 2003, was scheduled to occur on April 23, 2003. On that date the appellant appeared in court, with counsel. Instead of proceeding with the hearing, the County Court granted the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment rendered February 27, 2001, accepted the defendant's plea of guilty to attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, in satisfaction of the above-referenced indictment, and imposed sentence. No appeal has been taken from the judgment rendered April 23, 2003. By order to show cause dated May 9, 2006, the appellant or his attorney were directed to show cause before this court why an order should or should not be made and entered dismissing the above-entitled appeal on the ground that the appeal has been rendered academic by the subsequent proceedings which occurred before the County Court, Orange County, on April 23, 2003.
Now, on the court's own motion, and the papers filed in response to the order to show cause, it is
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed on the ground that it has been rendered academic.
PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, KRAUSMAN and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court