People v. Hattemer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hattemer

4 A.D.2d 674, 164 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5259

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

DecidedJune 3, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 674 (People v. Hattemer) 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. Hattemer, 4 A.D.2d 674, 164 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to dismiss an indictment upon inspection of the minutes of the Grand Jury of the Extraordinary Trial and Special Terra of the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. Motion granted, indictment dismissed, and bail exonerated. The indictment charges defendant with violations of section 1841 of the Penal Law. The testimony before the Grand Jury was insufficient in that there was no proof to show that the defendant willfully neglected to perform a duty enjoined by law. To warrant intentional neglect it had to be shown that defendant had actual knowledge that the purchases of food had been made in violation of the requirements with respect to notice and bidding. (American Surety Co. v. Sullivan, 7 F. 2d 605, 606; People v. Foster, 204 App. Div. 295; Gardner v. People, 62 N. Y. 299; People v. Marrin, 205 N. Y. 275, 279-280; People V. Harrison, 238 N. Y. 348, 351-352.) Present ■—■ Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ.

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

Motion to dismiss an indictment upon inspection of the minutes of the Grand Jury of the Extraordinary Trial and Special Terra of the Supreme Court of Suffolk County. Motion granted, indictment dismissed, and bail exonerated. The indictment charges defendant with violations of section 1841 of the Penal Law. The testimony before the Grand Jury was insufficient in that there was no proof to show that the defendant willfully neglected to perform a duty enjoined by law. To warrant intentional neglect it had to be shown that defendant had actual knowledge that the purchases of food had been made in violation of the requirements with respect to notice and bidding. (American Surety Co. v. Sullivan, 7 F. 2d 605, 606; People v. Foster, 204 App. Div. 295; Gardner v. People, 62 N. Y. 299; People v. Marrin, 205 N. Y. 275, 279-280; People V. Harrison, 238 N. Y. 348, 351-352.) Present ■—■ Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 674, 164 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hattemer-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack