People v. Hirsch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hirsch

83 A.D.2d 811, 441 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15169

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

DecidedAugust 13, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 83 A.D.2d 811 (People v. Hirsch) 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. Hirsch, 83 A.D.2d 811, 441 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15169 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwards, J.), rendered June 4, 1980, convicting defendant-appellant, after jury trial, of three counts of perjury in the first degree, and one count of criminal contempt in the first degree, and sentencing her to a term of five years’ probation, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent that the conviction of criminal contempt in the first degree is reversed and that count of the indictment dismissed, and judgment otherwise affirmed. Upon the record before us, we cannot say that appellant’s inability to recall was contumacious and unlawful and was so evasive or falsely equivocal as to amount to no answer at all for the purposes of prosecution for criminal contempt in the first degree. We find appellant’s other contentions to be without merit. Concur — Sandler, J.P., Carro, Bloom and Fein, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwards, J.), rendered June 4, 1980, convicting defendant-appellant, after jury trial, of three counts of perjury in the first degree, and one count of criminal contempt in the first degree, and sentencing her to a term of five years’ probation, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent that the conviction of criminal contempt in the first degree is reversed and that count of the indictment dismissed, and judgment otherwise affirmed. Upon the record before us, we cannot say that appellant’s inability to recall was contumacious and unlawful and was so evasive or falsely equivocal as to amount to no answer at all for the purposes of prosecution for criminal contempt in the first degree. We find appellant’s other contentions to be without merit. Concur — Sandler, J.P., Carro, Bloom and Fein, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.2d 811, 441 N.Y.S.2d 811, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hirsch-nyappdiv-1981.