Hudson v. Mealey

New York Supreme Court

Hudson v. Mealey

176 Misc. 696, 28 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1941 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1894

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedApril 25, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 176 Misc. 696 (Hudson v. Mealey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hudson v. Mealey, 176 Misc. 696, 28 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1941 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1894 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Benvenga, J.

This is an application for an order vacating and setting aside two orders made by the respondent, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, revoking the privilege of the petitioner to operate a motor vehicle and suspending his right to have a motor vehicle registered in his name.

The question presented is whether the police justice before whom the petitioner was arraigned on a charge of leaving the scene of an accident without reporting the same, complied with the provisions of section 335-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which, so far as material, provides that, on arraignment of a person charged with a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the magistrate “ must ” inform the defendant that upon conviction he will be liable not only to a penalty, but that in addition, his license to drive a motor vehicle “ may or must be suspended or revoked ” in accordance with the provisions of law governing the charge involved. [697]*697Section 71 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law requires that, upon conviction of the offense of leaving the scene of an accident, to which the petitioner pleaded guilty, Ms license must be revoked. Accordingly, it was the duty of the police justice to inform the defendant of that fact. (Matter of De Martino v. Mealey, 284 N. Y. 231; People v. Sutcliffe, 255 App. Div. 299; People v. Serences, Id. 587; Matter of Schapiro v. Mealey, 175 Misc. 367; Matter of Nervo v. Mealey, Id. 952.)

Concededly, at the time of the arraignment and before the acceptance of the plea, the police justice warned the petitioner that, in addition to any other penalty that might be imposed, Ms license “ might ” be suspended or revoked in the event of Ms conviction of the crime charged; he did not inform the petitioner that Ms license “ must ” be suspended or revoked. There was, therefore, no compliance with the requirements of section 335-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The motion is granted. Settle order.

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

Benvenga, J.

This is an application for an order vacating and setting aside two orders made by the respondent, the Commissioner of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, revoking the privilege of the petitioner to operate a motor vehicle and suspending his right to have a motor vehicle registered in his name.

The question presented is whether the police justice before whom the petitioner was arraigned on a charge of leaving the scene of an accident without reporting the same, complied with the provisions of section 335-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which, so far as material, provides that, on arraignment of a person charged with a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the magistrate “ must ” inform the defendant that upon conviction he will be liable not only to a penalty, but that in addition, his license to drive a motor vehicle “ may or must be suspended or revoked ” in accordance with the provisions of law governing the charge involved. [697]*697Section 71 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law requires that, upon conviction of the offense of leaving the scene of an accident, to which the petitioner pleaded guilty, Ms license must be revoked. Accordingly, it was the duty of the police justice to inform the defendant of that fact. (Matter of De Martino v. Mealey, 284 N. Y. 231; People v. Sutcliffe, 255 App. Div. 299; People v. Serences, Id. 587; Matter of Schapiro v. Mealey, 175 Misc. 367; Matter of Nervo v. Mealey, Id. 952.)

Concededly, at the time of the arraignment and before the acceptance of the plea, the police justice warned the petitioner that, in addition to any other penalty that might be imposed, Ms license “ might ” be suspended or revoked in the event of Ms conviction of the crime charged; he did not inform the petitioner that Ms license “ must ” be suspended or revoked. There was, therefore, no compliance with the requirements of section 335-a of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The motion is granted. Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 Misc. 696, 28 N.Y.S.2d 330, 1941 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-v-mealey-nysupct-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack