The following excerpt is from People on Complaint of Allen v. Citadel Management Co., Inc., 355 N.Y.S.2d 976, 78 Misc.2d 626 (N.Y. City Ct. 1974):
Thus, it is clear that the overwhelming weight of authority supports the view that the absence of representation from the District Attorney's office does not invalidate the procedure, certainly where a violation or petty offense is involved. Moreover, the defendant has not alleged nor, in any way, demonstrated prejudice. Considering the huge case load with which the District Attorney's office is burdened, the District Attorney must of necessity use his discretion to decide the types of crimes and offenses, given the limited nature of his staff and resources, he will emphasize and prosecute. If the District Attorney finds himself unable to prosecute certain petty offenses in the Summons Part, this does not mean that the defendant has the right not to be prosecuted at all. A holding that the District Attorney must be physically present at all such trials would work a great injustice to the spirit of the law, on persons who feel themselves aggrieved but might otherwise have no other recourse, and would revolutionize a procedure with the sanction of a long tradition and which today has the force of law. People v. Wyner, supra. Moreover, since the District Attorney is certainly aware of the existence of the Summons Parts, where complaints are commonly instituted by private persons and prosecutions conducted by them or their personal counsel, he has to that extent exercised his discretion not to prosecute such petty offenses and, by implication, has approved and acquiesced in the practice.
Finally, it must be noted that the attorney for the defense did not object to the instant prosecution until well into the trial. Having proceeded so long without complaining about the absence of the District Attorney in the case, this court is of the view that by having failed to make timely objection, and there being no evidence of any prejudice to the defendant, the defendant is now precluded from complaining of the irregularity, if there is any. See People v. Apostle, supra, and State v. Vaughner, 76 N.J.Super. 594, 185 A.2d 227 (1962).
For all of the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion is denied.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.