Abel v. Barvinchak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abel v. Barvinchak

263 A.D. 909, 31 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7328

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 7, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D. 909 (Abel v. Barvinchak) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abel v. Barvinchak, 263 A.D. 909, 31 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

The appellant was assigned to the vice squad. A complaint was made to him that one Kuzniek was operating a still .in violation of law. Through a stool pigeon he made two unsuccessful attempts to obtain evidence of the violation and he also kept watch over the premises for a short time thereafter. The evidence shows that during all of the time while appellant claimed he was attempting to obtain evidence of the violation, the still was in operation and so continued until about a year thereafter when a new member of the vice squad easily obtained evidence which resulted in a conviction. The evidence sustains the conclusion that there was no reasonable effort on the part of the appellant to obtain the necessary proof and that he was guilty of neglect of duty as found by the commissioner. Determination confirmed, without costs. Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss and Foster, JJ., concur; Schenck, J., dissents, on the ground that the evidence does not sustain the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of neglect of duty.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The appellant was assigned to the vice squad. A complaint was made to him that one Kuzniek was operating a still .in violation of law. Through a stool pigeon he made two unsuccessful attempts to obtain evidence of the violation and he also kept watch over the premises for a short time thereafter. The evidence shows that during all of the time while appellant claimed he was attempting to obtain evidence of the violation, the still was in operation and so continued until about a year thereafter when a new member of the vice squad easily obtained evidence which resulted in a conviction. The evidence sustains the conclusion that there was no reasonable effort on the part of the appellant to obtain the necessary proof and that he was guilty of neglect of duty as found by the commissioner. Determination confirmed, without costs. Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss and Foster, JJ., concur; Schenck, J., dissents, on the ground that the evidence does not sustain the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of neglect of duty.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 909, 31 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abel-v-barvinchak-nyappdiv-1942.