People v. Del Rio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Del Rio

34 A.D.2d 651, 310 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5199

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

DecidedApril 6, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 651 (People v. Del Rio) 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

People v. Del Rio, 34 A.D.2d 651, 310 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5199 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

In a coram nobis proceeding to vacate a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered August 6, 1945, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 17, 1969, which denied the application after a hearing. Order affirmed. In our. opinion the trial court was entitled to consider the excessively long period during which defendant failed to complain, either formally or informally, of the alleged irregularity despite the fact that he was in frequent trouble with the law and was represented by counsel on each occasion (People v. Nixon, 21 N Y 2d 338, 352; cf. People v. Murphy, 20 A D 2d 222; People v. De Vore, 14 A D 2d 469). Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Latham, JJ., concur.

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

In a coram nobis proceeding to vacate a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered August 6, 1945, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 17, 1969, which denied the application after a hearing. Order affirmed. In our. opinion the trial court was entitled to consider the excessively long period during which defendant failed to complain, either formally or informally, of the alleged irregularity despite the fact that he was in frequent trouble with the law and was represented by counsel on each occasion (People v. Nixon, 21 N Y 2d 338, 352; cf. People v. Murphy, 20 A D 2d 222; People v. De Vore, 14 A D 2d 469). Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Latham, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 651, 310 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-del-rio-nyappdiv-1970.