In re Reigi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Reigi

222 A.D. 696

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D. 696 (In re Reigi) 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 Reigi, 222 A.D. 696 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion denied and proceeding dismissed. (.1) There is no sufficient showing on the moving papers and the transcripts of the hearings before the magistrate, of conduct of the character that within the authorities would warrant the granting of the motion for a reference herein. (Matter of Tighe, 97 App. Div. 28; Matter of Baker, 94 id. 278; Matter of Snitken, 161 id. 516.) (2) Upon the same papers, the conduct of the petitioner and his brother was provocative, but whether in any particular instance it would warrant the prosecution of a charge of disorderly conduct or any other form of discipline we need not pass upon at this time. (3) The term “ shut up',” used by the respondent in People v. Tapanese, was not in good taste, even though provoked, but such an isolated instance is wholly insufficient to warrant the proceedings invoked by the petitioner herein. (Matter of Snitken, supra.) .Present — Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Kapper, Seeger and Carswell, JJ.

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

Motion denied and proceeding dismissed. (.1) There is no sufficient showing on the moving papers and the transcripts of the hearings before the magistrate, of conduct of the character that within the authorities would warrant the granting of the motion for a reference herein. (Matter of Tighe, 97 App. Div. 28; Matter of Baker, 94 id. 278; Matter of Snitken, 161 id. 516.) (2) Upon the same papers, the conduct of the petitioner and his brother was provocative, but whether in any particular instance it would warrant the prosecution of a charge of disorderly conduct or any other form of discipline we need not pass upon at this time. (3) The term “ shut up',” used by the respondent in People v. Tapanese, was not in good taste, even though provoked, but such an isolated instance is wholly insufficient to warrant the proceedings invoked by the petitioner herein. (Matter of Snitken, supra.) .Present — Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Kapper, Seeger and Carswell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D. 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-reigi-nyappdiv-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack