People v. Dercole

419 N.E.2d 869, 52 N.Y.2d 956, 437 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2203
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 12, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by33 cases

This text of 419 N.E.2d 869 (People v. Dercole) 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. Dercole, 419 N.E.2d 869, 52 N.Y.2d 956, 437 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2203 (N.Y. 1981).

Opinion

[957]*957OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The appeal should be dismissed.

The Appellate Division’s determination to reverse did not satisfy the jurisdictional predicate that it be made on the law alone or on the law and such facts which, except for the determination of law, would not have led to the reversal (CPL 450.90, subd 2). Although the order states that the reversal is on the law, the opinion reveals that it was based on the asserted repugnancy of the trial court’s verdicts, to which timely objection had not been taken.

As we made clear in People v Johnson (47 NY2d 124), a reversal by the Appellate Division based on claimed trial error to which objection is not taken presents no questions of law for appellate review in this court (see CPL 470.05, subd 2). We also gave expression to this principle in People v Cona (49 NY2d 26, 33-34) where, confronted with an Appellate Division conclusion as a matter of law that there had been preservation despite failure to object, we held, citing to Johnson (supra), that our review could proceed no further than reversal on that singular point of law and remittal to the Appellate Division to decide whether it was appropriate to treat the question within the exercise of its discretion.

In view of the dismissal thus mandated, this court, of course, has not reached the merits. It therefore goes without saying that our disposition does not reflect indorsement of the rulings contained in the opinion below (see Panico v Young, 46 NY2d 847).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Appeal dismissed in a memorandum.

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

Related

People v. Riley
973 N.E.2d 1280 (New York Court of Appeals, 2012)
People v. Munck
92 A.D.3d 63 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Rowe v. Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven
960 A.2d 256 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2008)
People v. Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc.
846 N.E.2d 457 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Nieves
811 N.E.2d 13 (New York Court of Appeals, 2004)
People v. Stewart
691 N.E.2d 1024 (New York Court of Appeals, 1998)
People v. Schepis
658 N.E.2d 218 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Hinton
81 N.Y.2d 867 (New York Court of Appeals, 1993)
People v. Hall
540 N.E.2d 711 (New York Court of Appeals, 1989)
People v. Knight
538 N.E.2d 353 (New York Court of Appeals, 1989)
People v. Ramos
534 N.E.2d 323 (New York Court of Appeals, 1989)
People v. Lee
139 A.D.2d 596 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
People v. Amar
134 A.D.2d 601 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
People v. Lavender
503 N.E.2d 121 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
People v. Gonzalez
503 N.E.2d 120 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
People v. Gallagher
116 A.D.2d 299 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Lawlor
492 N.E.2d 1229 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
People v. Layman
112 A.D.2d 530 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
People v. Womble
111 A.D.2d 283 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
People v. Hoke
468 N.E.2d 677 (New York Court of Appeals, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
419 N.E.2d 869, 52 N.Y.2d 956, 437 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1981 N.Y. LEXIS 2203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dercole-ny-1981.