Carlino v. Downs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carlino v. Downs

244 A.D. 801

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

DecidedMay 15, 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 244 A.D. 801 (Carlino v. Downs) 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

Carlino v. Downs, 244 A.D. 801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding by certiorari to review an order made by the County Court of Queens county, adjudging the petitioner in criminal contempt, fining him $250, and, in default of payment thereof, committing him to the city prison of Queens county for thirty days, certiorari order sustained, the order of commitment annulled, and the petitioner’s fine remitted, without costs, upon the ground that the original commitment was void for failure to set forth the particular circumstances of petitioner’s offense as required by section 752 of the Judiciary Law (Briddon v. Briddon, 229 N. Y. 452) and such invalidity could not be cured by amendment or resettlement. In making this decision, we do not condone the conduct of the petitioner, which we consider reprehensible. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Scudder and Johnston, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., not voting.

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

In a proceeding by certiorari to review an order made by the County Court of Queens county, adjudging the petitioner in criminal contempt, fining him $250, and, in default of payment thereof, committing him to the city prison of Queens county for thirty days, certiorari order sustained, the order of commitment annulled, and the petitioner’s fine remitted, without costs, upon the ground that the original commitment was void for failure to set forth the particular circumstances of petitioner’s offense as required by section 752 of the Judiciary Law (Briddon v. Briddon, 229 N. Y. 452) and such invalidity could not be cured by amendment or resettlement. In making this decision, we do not condone the conduct of the petitioner, which we consider reprehensible. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Scudder and Johnston, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D. 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlino-v-downs-nyappdiv-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack