In a significant ruling, the New York Supreme Court, Kings County, upheld the indictment against Milton Simon, who faces robbery charges stemming from incidents that occurred in 2016. The court's decision, issued on December 22, 2025, affects Simon's legal standing and the prosecution's ability to proceed with the case.
The case revolves around two robbery incidents that took place on March 22, 2016. The first incident involved Michael Spruill, who was robbed at gunpoint, while the second involved Larry Gonzalez and his wife, who were also threatened by an individual with a gun. The court's ruling is crucial as it determines whether Simon will face trial for these charges after previous legal proceedings.
Background
Milton Simon was indicted in 2016 for two separate robbery incidents occurring in Kings County, New York. The first incident involved Simon allegedly pointing a revolver at Michael Spruill and demanding his belongings, which included cash, headphones, and a phone. The second incident involved Larry Gonzalez, who was also threatened with a gun while out with his wife.
Following the incidents, Simon was arrested and initially indicted on multiple charges. He later appealed his conviction, arguing that the identification process used by the police was unduly suggestive and that he was denied the right to testify before the Grand Jury. The appellate court agreed with Simon on some points, reversing his conviction and remanding the case for a new trial on the remaining charges.
The Ruling
Judge Kim Petersen of the New York Supreme Court ruled against Simon's motion to dismiss the indictment on December 22, 2025. The court found that the Grand Jury's decision to indict Simon was not improperly influenced by evidence related to the first robbery, which had been dismissed on appeal. The ruling stated, "The defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the Grand Jurors were possibly improperly influenced to indict the defendant as to the second robbery after hearing evidence as to the first robbery which was subsequently dismissed on appeal, is denied."
The court also addressed Simon's claims regarding his right to testify before the Grand Jury, stating that previous motions on this issue had already been denied. The court emphasized that the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented to the Grand Jury at the time of the indictment was adequate to support the charges against Simon.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for Simon as he prepares to face trial for the remaining robbery charges. By upholding the indictment, the court affirmed the legal process that led to Simon's charges and reinforced the standards for Grand Jury proceedings. It sets a precedent that the dismissal of some charges does not automatically invalidate the entire indictment if sufficient evidence supports the remaining charges.
The decision also highlights the importance of the Grand Jury's role in the criminal justice process. It indicates that the evidence presented, even if later challenged, can still support an indictment if it was legally sufficient at the time of the Grand Jury's decision.
What's Next
Simon can continue to appeal aspects of the ruling, particularly regarding his right to testify before the Grand Jury. However, the court's decision to deny the motion to dismiss the indictment suggests that the prosecution will proceed with the trial on the remaining charges. Details about any related cases or future motions were not available in the court filing.