People v. Gonzalez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gonzalez

22 A.D.2d 698, 253 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3082

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 698 (People v. Gonzalez) 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. Gonzalez, 22 A.D.2d 698, 253 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 23, 1964, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss an indictment on the ground that the evidence before the Grand Jury was insufficient in law to warrant the finding of the indictment. Order reversed on the law; motion denied; and indictment reinstated. In our opinion, the evidence was such as to authorize the Grand Jury, in its judgment, to find that there was sufficient lawful evidence to justify the five-count indictment based on the violation of article 33 of the Public Health Law and section 1751 of the Penal Law, as applicable to the sale, possession and control of cannabis (People v. Eckert, 2 N Y 2d 126, 129; People v. Carter, 4 A D 2d 879; People v. Cohen, 20 A D 2d 801; People v. Sweeney, 213 N. Y. 37; People v. Watford, 19 A D 2d 731). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 23, 1964, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss an indictment on the ground that the evidence before the Grand Jury was insufficient in law to warrant the finding of the indictment. Order reversed on the law; motion denied; and indictment reinstated. In our opinion, the evidence was such as to authorize the Grand Jury, in its judgment, to find that there was sufficient lawful evidence to justify the five-count indictment based on the violation of article 33 of the Public Health Law and section 1751 of the Penal Law, as applicable to the sale, possession and control of cannabis (People v. Eckert, 2 N Y 2d 126, 129; People v. Carter, 4 A D 2d 879; People v. Cohen, 20 A D 2d 801; People v. Sweeney, 213 N. Y. 37; People v. Watford, 19 A D 2d 731). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 698, 253 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gonzalez-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack