People v. Dosztan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dosztan

286 A.D. 1151, 146 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5469

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D. 1151 (People v. Dosztan) 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. Dosztan, 286 A.D. 1151, 146 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: The records before us, including the record of conviction, do not reveal that defendant was ever informed of his rights to have counsel, as required by the mandatory provisions of sections 188 and 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the “County Court Minutes,” apparently written up by a stenographer, contain the statement “Defendant present with attorney Joseph W. Singer, as counsel.” In view of defendant’s positive denial that he was represented by this lawyer, or any other lawyer, we feel that the conflicting records (all duly certified) in this respect are inconclusive. He was, therefore, entitled to a hearing. (People v. Richetti, 302 N. Y. 290; People v. Guariglia, 303 N. Y. 338.) All concur. (Appeal from an order of Lewis County Court denying defendant’s application for an order granting a hearing and for the issuance of a writ of error coram nobis vacating a judgment of conviction.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Kimball, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.

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

Memorandum: The records before us, including the record of conviction, do not reveal that defendant was ever informed of his rights to have counsel, as required by the mandatory provisions of sections 188 and 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the “County Court Minutes,” apparently written up by a stenographer, contain the statement “Defendant present with attorney Joseph W. Singer, as counsel.” In view of defendant’s positive denial that he was represented by this lawyer, or any other lawyer, we feel that the conflicting records (all duly certified) in this respect are inconclusive. He was, therefore, entitled to a hearing. (People v. Richetti, 302 N. Y. 290; People v. Guariglia, 303 N. Y. 338.) All concur. (Appeal from an order of Lewis County Court denying defendant’s application for an order granting a hearing and for the issuance of a writ of error coram nobis vacating a judgment of conviction.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Kimball, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D. 1151, 146 N.Y.S.2d 17, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dosztan-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack