| People v Read |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02820 [71 AD3d 1167] |
| March 30, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v DavidRead, Respondent. |
—[*1] Michael G. Paul, New City, N.Y., for respondent.
Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Rockland County (Bartlett, J.),dated December 17, 2008, which granted that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion whichwas to dismiss the indictment, with leave to re-present the matter to a new grand jury.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, that branch of the defendant's omnibus motionwhich was to dismiss the indictment is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter isremitted to the County Court, Rockland County, for further proceedings on the indictment.
Dismissal of an indictment is appropriate where the grand jury proceeding is defective inthat it fails "to conform to the requirements of [CPL article 190] to such degree that the integritythereof is impaired and prejudice to the defendant may result" (CPL 210.35 [5]; see CPL210.20 [1] [c]). As the dismissal of an indictment is a drastic and exceptional remedy (seePeople v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 363 [1973], cert denied 416 US 905 [1974];People v Alston, 23 AD3d 487, 488 [2005]), dismissal "should thus be limited to thoseinstances where prosecutorial wrongdoing, fraudulent conduct or errors potentially prejudice theultimate decision reached by the Grand Jury" (People v Huston, 88 NY2d 400, 409[1996]; see People v Ramirez, 298 AD2d 413 [2002]).
Here, the grand jury proceeding did not fail to conform to the requirements of CPL article190 to such a degree that the integrity thereof was impaired and, in view of the sufficiency of theadmissible proof which supports the indictment, even if some of the testimony elicited wasinadmissible, no prejudice to the defendant could have resulted therefrom (see CPL210.20 [1] [c]; 210.35 [5]; People v Huston, 88 NY2d at 409; People v Kennedy,69 AD3d 881, 882 [2010]; People v Moffitt, 20 AD3d 687, 689 [2005]).
In light of the foregoing, we need not address the People's remaining contentions. Prudenti,P.J., Balkin, Leventhal and Austin, JJ., concur.