People v. Dorsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dorsen

245 A.D. 511, 283 N.Y.S. 213, 1935 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10346

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D. 511 (People v. Dorsen) 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. Dorsen, 245 A.D. 511, 283 N.Y.S. 213, 1935 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinions

O’Malley, J.

I am of the opinion that the judgment of conviction of the defendant Spielberg must be reversed and the indictment dismissed. Concededly there is no evidence tending to show that he participated in the preparation of the false affidavit upon which the indictment is predicated or that he had any knowledge of any of its contents or that it was to be presented. There was no statute or rule of the department given the force of statute, which required the submission of the affidavit. There was at most a mere custom of which the defendant Spielberg was not shown to have knowledge. As to the other defendants, however, I am of opinion that the evidence was sufficient to justify their conviction.

I, therefore, vote to reverse as to the defendant Spielberg and to dismiss the indictment, and to affirm the judgment of conviction as to the defendants Dorsen and Shepard.

McAvoy, J., concurs; Martin, P. J., and Merrell, J., dissent and vote to affirm as to all defendants; Untermyer, J., dissents as to the defendants Dorsen and Shepard, but concurs as to the defendant Spielberg.

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

O’Malley, J.

I am of the opinion that the judgment of conviction of the defendant Spielberg must be reversed and the indictment dismissed. Concededly there is no evidence tending to show that he participated in the preparation of the false affidavit upon which the indictment is predicated or that he had any knowledge of any of its contents or that it was to be presented. There was no statute or rule of the department given the force of statute, which required the submission of the affidavit. There was at most a mere custom of which the defendant Spielberg was not shown to have knowledge. As to the other defendants, however, I am of opinion that the evidence was sufficient to justify their conviction.

I, therefore, vote to reverse as to the defendant Spielberg and to dismiss the indictment, and to affirm the judgment of conviction as to the defendants Dorsen and Shepard.

McAvoy, J., concurs; Martin, P. J., and Merrell, J., dissent and vote to affirm as to all defendants; Untermyer, J., dissents as to the defendants Dorsen and Shepard, but concurs as to the defendant Spielberg.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D. 511, 283 N.Y.S. 213, 1935 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dorsen-nyappdiv-1935.