Under New York Criminal Procedure Law 170.20, a pending misdemeanor in local criminal court can be pulled up to a superior court so a grand jury can consider it. This happens one of two ways: automatically, the moment a superior court files an indictment on the same charge, or through an adjournment the district attorney requests to buy time for grand jury presentation. Either way, the local court’s authority over the charge ends once the mechanism is triggered.1New York State Senate. New York Criminal Procedure Law 170.20 – Divestiture of Jurisdiction by Indictment; Removal of Case to Superior Court at District Attorney’s Instance
Automatic Divestiture When an Indictment Is Filed
Subdivision 1 is the simpler of the two routes. If a superior court files an indictment charging you with the same misdemeanor already pending against you in local criminal court, the local court loses jurisdiction immediately. No motion is required. No order is required. The filing itself terminates the local proceedings.1New York State Senate. New York Criminal Procedure Law 170.20 – Divestiture of Jurisdiction by Indictment; Removal of Case to Superior Court at District Attorney’s Instance
There is one hard timing limit. The indictment has to be filed before you have entered a guilty plea in the local court or before trial has begun there. Once either of those happens, the window closes. An indictment that lands after a plea or after trial starts will not strip the local court of jurisdiction over the misdemeanor.1New York State Senate. New York Criminal Procedure Law 170.20 – Divestiture of Jurisdiction by Indictment; Removal of Case to Superior Court at District Attorney’s Instance
When the DA Asks for an Adjournment
The second route, subdivision 2, is more common. The prosecutor hasn’t obtained an indictment yet but intends to seek one. The DA applies to the local court for an adjournment of the proceedings, stating the intent to present the misdemeanor to a grand jury. As with automatic divestiture, this application has to come before a guilty plea is entered or trial begins.1New York State Senate. New York Criminal Procedure Law 170.20 – Divestiture of Jurisdiction by Indictment; Removal of Case to Superior Court at District Attorney’s Instance
The local court has no discretion to refuse. Once the DA applies, the court must adjourn the proceedings to a date giving the prosecutor a reasonable opportunity to present the charge to a grand jury. If that initial period isn’t enough, the court may grant further adjournments, again limited to what is reasonable in the circumstances.1New York State Senate. New York Criminal Procedure Law 170.20 – Divestiture of Jurisdiction by Indictment; Removal of Case to Superior Court at District Attorney’s Instance
During the adjournment the case is frozen. The local court cannot try the charge and cannot accept a guilty plea on it. Whatever bail or release conditions were already set remain in effect while the grand jury process plays out.
What Happens After the Adjournment
The statute spells out three possible outcomes, and none of them is discretionary. They follow from what the grand jury does, or doesn’t do, during the adjournment period.
Grand Jury Indicts
If the grand jury votes to indict, the local court loses jurisdiction and the case continues in superior court on the indictment.1New York State Senate. New York Criminal Procedure Law 170.20 – Divestiture of Jurisdiction by Indictment; Removal of Case to Superior Court at District Attorney’s Instance
Grand Jury Dismisses
If the grand jury votes to dismiss (a “no true bill”), the local court likewise loses jurisdiction and its proceedings terminate. Under CPL 170.25, a grand jury dismissal ends the local case, and if you are in custody or on bail, the superior court must release you or exonerate the bail.2New York State Senate. New York Criminal Procedure Law 170.25 – Divestiture of Jurisdiction by Indictment
Grand Jury Takes No Action
If the DA fails to present the charge within the adjournment period, the case snaps back. The statute says proceedings in the local court “must continue.” The removal window has closed, and the local court resumes handling the misdemeanor as if the adjournment had never happened.1New York State Senate. New York Criminal Procedure Law 170.20 – Divestiture of Jurisdiction by Indictment; Removal of Case to Superior Court at District Attorney’s Instance
When a Grand Jury Sends the Case Back as a Prosecutor’s Information
A related path exists under CPL 190.70. If a grand jury reviews the evidence and concludes the conduct amounts to a misdemeanor or lesser offense rather than a felony, it can direct the district attorney to file a “prosecutor’s information” in local criminal court. The direction must include a plain statement of the conduct constituting the offense and be signed by the grand jury foreperson. The local court with trial jurisdiction over the charge then handles the case.3New York State Senate. New York Criminal Procedure Law 190.70 – Grand Jury; Direction to File Prosecutor’s Information and Related Matters
When the case lands back in local court this way, sentencing is capped by that court’s authority. For a class A misdemeanor, imprisonment cannot exceed 364 days.4New York State Senate. New York Penal Law 70.15 – Sentences of Imprisonment for Misdemeanors and Violation
What the Adjournment Does to Your Speedy Trial Clock
CPL 30.30 sets deadlines for the prosecution to be ready for trial. For misdemeanors punishable by more than three months of imprisonment, the deadline is 90 days. For misdemeanors carrying a maximum of three months or less, it is 60 days.5New York State Senate. New York Criminal Procedure Law 30.30 – Speedy Trial
A CPL 170.20 adjournment interacts with that clock. Certain adjournments are excluded from the speedy trial calculation, and prosecutors frequently argue that time spent waiting on grand jury action should not count against them. If your case is adjourned under 170.20, it is worth tracking how much time the prosecution had already used before the application, and whether any further extensions the local court grants still qualify as “reasonable” under the statute.