People v. Di Alto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Di Alto

24 A.D.2d 1023, 267 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2740

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 1023 (People v. Di Alto) 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. Di Alto, 24 A.D.2d 1023, 267 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2740 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 20, 1964 upon his plea of guilty, convicting him of attempted robbery in the. third degree, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed and matter remitted to the Criminal Term for further proceedings. Tinder the circumstances herein, the holding in People v. Serrano (15 N Y 2d 304) is determinative of this appeal and requires that the conviction be vacated and the defendant permitted to plead anew to the indictment. The contention of the District Attorney that the attempted robbery was “from the possession of and in the presence of ” Beekerman and Newman is not borne out by this record, nor does it appear that the crime charged in the indictment was committed by this appellant. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 20, 1964 upon his plea of guilty, convicting him of attempted robbery in the. third degree, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed and matter remitted to the Criminal Term for further proceedings. Tinder the circumstances herein, the holding in People v. Serrano (15 N Y 2d 304) is determinative of this appeal and requires that the conviction be vacated and the defendant permitted to plead anew to the indictment. The contention of the District Attorney that the attempted robbery was “from the possession of and in the presence of ” Beekerman and Newman is not borne out by this record, nor does it appear that the crime charged in the indictment was committed by this appellant. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 1023, 267 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-di-alto-nyappdiv-1965.