People v. Lasky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lasky

34 A.D.2d 1018, 313 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4311

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

DecidedJune 29, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 1018 (People v. Lasky) 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. Lasky, 34 A.D.2d 1018, 313 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4311 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the County .Court, Dutchess 'County, dated April 29, 1969, affirmed. Defendant’s application is treated as a motion for a writ of error coram nobis (People v. Machado, 17 N Y 2d 440, cert. den. 383 U. S. 921; People v. Boney, 34 A D 2d 651). The burden of proof was on defendant with respect to the unconstitutionality claim (People v. Broderick, 43 Mise 2d 1014, app. dsmd. 24 A D 2d 638, mot. for lv. to app. [treated as mot. in a habeas corpus proceeding] den. sub nom. People ex rel. Broderick v. La Vallee, 17 N Y 2d 485; People v. Gillespie, 44 Mise 2d 592). Defendant’s alleged misapprehension is not pertinent inasmuch as he was represented by counsel. The claim that counsel operated under misapprehension is hearsay. Further, counsel’s alleged error is not a basis for coram nobis relief (People V. Eckhard, 26 A D 2d 866). In any case, the record indicates that the alleged misapprehension was clearly not justified and the papers are insufficient to corroborate the eonelusory allegation that the out-of-State convictions were unconstitutional (People v. Cornish, 21 A D 2d 280; People v. Wimberly, 23 A D 2d 684). Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the County .Court, Dutchess 'County, dated April 29, 1969, affirmed. Defendant’s application is treated as a motion for a writ of error coram nobis (People v. Machado, 17 N Y 2d 440, cert. den. 383 U. S. 921; People v. Boney, 34 A D 2d 651). The burden of proof was on defendant with respect to the unconstitutionality claim (People v. Broderick, 43 Mise 2d 1014, app. dsmd. 24 A D 2d 638, mot. for lv. to app. [treated as mot. in a habeas corpus proceeding] den. sub nom. People ex rel. Broderick v. La Vallee, 17 N Y 2d 485; People v. Gillespie, 44 Mise 2d 592). Defendant’s alleged misapprehension is not pertinent inasmuch as he was represented by counsel. The claim that counsel operated under misapprehension is hearsay. Further, counsel’s alleged error is not a basis for coram nobis relief (People V. Eckhard, 26 A D 2d 866). In any case, the record indicates that the alleged misapprehension was clearly not justified and the papers are insufficient to corroborate the eonelusory allegation that the out-of-State convictions were unconstitutional (People v. Cornish, 21 A D 2d 280; People v. Wimberly, 23 A D 2d 684). Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 1018, 313 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lasky-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack