People v. Kromol

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kromol

271 A.D.2d 648

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 648 (People v. Kromol) 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. Kromol, 271 A.D.2d 648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The information was not rendered invalid by misspelling a word (Code Crim. Pro., § 684). The sentence was not excessive in view of defendant’s record. No showing was made which would warrant granting his motion for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty and enter a plea of not guilty.

The attack on the information for failure to contain the signature of the district attorney seems to arise from the misconception that the district attorney must sign an information in the Magistrate’s Court. Where a magistrate sits as a Court of Special Sessions, on consent of the defendant, the trial may be had on the information or complaint before the magistrate, made by a complainant not the district attorney, and need not take the form of an information for Special Sessions signed by the district attorney (N. Y. City Crim. Cts. Act, § 131; People v. Wickes, 172 N. Y. S. 164).

The judgment and the order appealed from should be affirmed.

Martin, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Peck and Van Voorhis, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The information was not rendered invalid by misspelling a word (Code Crim. Pro., § 684). The sentence was not excessive in view of defendant’s record. No showing was made which would warrant granting his motion for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty and enter a plea of not guilty.

The attack on the information for failure to contain the signature of the district attorney seems to arise from the misconception that the district attorney must sign an information in the Magistrate’s Court. Where a magistrate sits as a Court of Special Sessions, on consent of the defendant, the trial may be had on the information or complaint before the magistrate, made by a complainant not the district attorney, and need not take the form of an information for Special Sessions signed by the district attorney (N. Y. City Crim. Cts. Act, § 131; People v. Wickes, 172 N. Y. S. 164).

The judgment and the order appealed from should be affirmed.

Martin, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Peck and Van Voorhis, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kromol-nyappdiv-1947.