People v. Dawley

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Dawley

225 N.E.2d 548, 19 N.Y.2d 663, 278 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1751

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 16, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 N.E.2d 548 (People v. Dawley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Dawley, 225 N.E.2d 548, 19 N.Y.2d 663, 278 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1751 (N.Y. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

[664]*664Order of the County Court reversed and case remitted to that court for determination upon the questions of fact raised in that court (Code Grim. Pro., §§ 543-a, 543-b). The mere fact of the presence of a notation of suspension and reinstatement on the face of an operator’s license is not ground for the reversal of a conviction for speeding. The provisions of section 501 (subd. 1, par. c) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law are restricted to those matters specifically mentioned therein (cf. People v. Lawton, 17 N Y 2d 637; see, also, People v. Kingston, 8 N Y 2d 384; Code Crim. Pro., § 542).

Concur: Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan and Breitel. Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Van Voorhis and Keating dissent and vote to affirm for the reasons stated in the opinion at the County Court.

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

[664]*664Order of the County Court reversed and case remitted to that court for determination upon the questions of fact raised in that court (Code Grim. Pro., §§ 543-a, 543-b). The mere fact of the presence of a notation of suspension and reinstatement on the face of an operator’s license is not ground for the reversal of a conviction for speeding. The provisions of section 501 (subd. 1, par. c) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law are restricted to those matters specifically mentioned therein (cf. People v. Lawton, 17 N Y 2d 637; see, also, People v. Kingston, 8 N Y 2d 384; Code Crim. Pro., § 542).

Concur: Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan and Breitel. Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Van Voorhis and Keating dissent and vote to affirm for the reasons stated in the opinion at the County Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 N.E.2d 548, 19 N.Y.2d 663, 278 N.Y.S.2d 855, 1967 N.Y. LEXIS 1751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dawley-ny-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack