Lipinczyk v. Dwyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lipinczyk v. Dwyer

12 A.D.2d 1000, 211 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12488

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.2d 1000 (Lipinczyk v. Dwyer) 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

Lipinczyk v. Dwyer, 12 A.D.2d 1000, 211 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed and proceeding remitted to Erie Special Term for a hearing in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: This court ordered proof to be taken to determine the existence of a copy of the information. (Matter of Lipinczyk v. Dwyer 10 A D 2d 794.) [1001]*1001A hearing was had without notice to petitioner-appellant and without his participation in any respect. Such a hearing was in the nature of an ex parte proceeding and did not meet the fundamental concept of a fair hearing required by the order of this court. A new hearing must be held upon notice to petitioner at which time he should be given the opportunity to participate either in person or by counsel. (Appeal from order of Brie Special Term after a hearing, denying petitioner’s request that he be furnished with a copy of an information.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed and proceeding remitted to Erie Special Term for a hearing in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: This court ordered proof to be taken to determine the existence of a copy of the information. (Matter of Lipinczyk v. Dwyer 10 A D 2d 794.) [1001]*1001A hearing was had without notice to petitioner-appellant and without his participation in any respect. Such a hearing was in the nature of an ex parte proceeding and did not meet the fundamental concept of a fair hearing required by the order of this court. A new hearing must be held upon notice to petitioner at which time he should be given the opportunity to participate either in person or by counsel. (Appeal from order of Brie Special Term after a hearing, denying petitioner’s request that he be furnished with a copy of an information.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 1000, 211 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lipinczyk-v-dwyer-nyappdiv-1961.