People v. Glass
275 A.D.2d 851
Opinion
Consideration of all factors leads to the conclusion that remission of the forfeiture was an improvident exercise of discretion. The willful default herein, and the effect thereof, tending, as it does, to bring the administration of justice into disrepute, may not be disregarded. (People v. Rigby, 293 N. Y. 912; People v. Schwarze, 168 App. Div. 124, 126; People v. Licenziata, 230 App. Div. 358, affd. 256 N. Y. 534; People v. Angolette, 267 App. Div. 996.) Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Glass, 275 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).
275 A.D.2d 851 (People v. Glass) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People v. Licenziata
177 N.E. 129 (New York Court of Appeals, 1931)
People v. Rigby, Continental Casualty Company
60 N.E.2d 36 (New York Court of Appeals, 1944)
People v. Schwarze
168 A.D. 124 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1915)
People v. Licenziata
230 A.D. 358 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1930)
People v. Angolette
267 A.D. 996 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1944)