In re a Search Warrant for Liquors Kept by Doe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re a Search Warrant for Liquors Kept by Doe

206 A.D. 647

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1923

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D. 647 (In re a Search Warrant for Liquors Kept by Doe) 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

In re a Search Warrant for Liquors Kept by Doe, 206 A.D. 647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed upon the ground that the amendment was improperly allowed: First, because it did not give appellants the notice required by statute

* and because it extended the period of temporary seizure beyond the statutory period of twenty days. (People v. Diamond, 233 N. Y. 130; People v. De Vasto, 198 App. Div. 620, 623; Matter of Liquors at 26 W. Third St., Mt. Vernon, 189 id. 109.) Second, because the show cause order which constituted the notice of the motion in which the order appealed from was made was void as failing to state the time when, the place where, and the court before which the hearing was to be held. The property taken under the void warrant to be returned. All concur.

See Code Crim. Proc. § 802-b, as added by Laws of 1921, chap. 156. This act is also known as the State Prohibition Enforcement Act and was revised from section 33 of the recently repealed Liquor Tax Law (as amd. by Laws of 1920, chap. 911; repd. by Laws of 1921, chap. 155), which repealing act is also known as the State Prohibition Act. Both of said acts have been since repealed by Laws of 1923, chap. 871.—[Rep.

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

Order reversed upon the ground that the amendment was improperly allowed: First, because it did not give appellants the notice required by statute

* and because it extended the period of temporary seizure beyond the statutory period of twenty days. (People v. Diamond, 233 N. Y. 130; People v. De Vasto, 198 App. Div. 620, 623; Matter of Liquors at 26 W. Third St., Mt. Vernon, 189 id. 109.) Second, because the show cause order which constituted the notice of the motion in which the order appealed from was made was void as failing to state the time when, the place where, and the court before which the hearing was to be held. The property taken under the void warrant to be returned. All concur.

See Code Crim. Proc. § 802-b, as added by Laws of 1921, chap. 156. This act is also known as the State Prohibition Enforcement Act and was revised from section 33 of the recently repealed Liquor Tax Law (as amd. by Laws of 1920, chap. 911; repd. by Laws of 1921, chap. 155), which repealing act is also known as the State Prohibition Act. Both of said acts have been since repealed by Laws of 1923, chap. 871.—[Rep.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D. 647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-a-search-warrant-for-liquors-kept-by-doe-nyappdiv-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack