People v. Diamond

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Diamond

41 Misc. 2d 35, 244 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1587

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 1, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 Misc. 2d 35 (People v. Diamond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Diamond, 41 Misc. 2d 35, 244 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1587 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Although the issuance of the summons was extraterritorial, when the defendant appeared before the court to answer a valid information filed against him, pleaded 1 ‘ not guilty ” thereto and proceeded to trial, the court acquired jurisdiction over his person (People v. Yerman, 138 Misc. 272; People v. Hagan, 138 Misc. 771, affd. 235 App. Div. 784; People v. Preble, 39 Misc 2d 411). This court does not agree with the decision in People v. Haber (20 Misc 2d 272) relied upon by the defendant. It is not consonant with the established case law nor is there any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the New York City Criminal Courts Act permitting a defendant in a criminal case to challenge the jurisdiction of the court over his person by a “ special appearance ”. The judgment of conviction should be affirmed.

Concur — Behjamih, Gulotta and S chwartz wald, JJ.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Although the issuance of the summons was extraterritorial, when the defendant appeared before the court to answer a valid information filed against him, pleaded 1 ‘ not guilty ” thereto and proceeded to trial, the court acquired jurisdiction over his person (People v. Yerman, 138 Misc. 272; People v. Hagan, 138 Misc. 771, affd. 235 App. Div. 784; People v. Preble, 39 Misc 2d 411). This court does not agree with the decision in People v. Haber (20 Misc 2d 272) relied upon by the defendant. It is not consonant with the established case law nor is there any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the New York City Criminal Courts Act permitting a defendant in a criminal case to challenge the jurisdiction of the court over his person by a “ special appearance ”. The judgment of conviction should be affirmed.

Concur — Behjamih, Gulotta and S chwartz wald, JJ.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 Misc. 2d 35, 244 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-diamond-nyappterm-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack