People v. Lawrence

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lawrence

19 A.D.2d 899, 244 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2924

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 A.D.2d 899 (People v. Lawrence) 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. Lawrence, 19 A.D.2d 899, 244 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the former County Court, Queens County, dated April 26, 1961, which denied after a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered October 27, 1939 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, and imposing sentence. Order reversed on the law and proceeding remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, Criminal Term, for a new hearing and for a determination de nova. No questions of fact were considered. While there was sufficient proof on which the court below could have properly rested its determination, nevertheless it committed reversible error when, upon the denial of defendant’s application, it indicated that it was relying on its own personal knowledge of certain facts, which were not proper subjects for judicial notice (see People v. Weiss, 19 A D 2d 900; cf. People v. Low, 3 A D 2d 979; City of Buffalo v. Beck, 205 Mise. 757; Costello v. Cassidy, 210 N. Y. S. 2d 46; Richardson, Evidence [8th ed.], p. 6). Beldock, P. J., Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld and Hill, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the order on the ground that the record amply supports the determination and that, under all the circumstances, it may not be said that the comments of [900]*900the trial court resulted in substantial prejudice to the defendants; hence, the error, if any, should not affect the judgment of this court (Code Crim. Pro., § 542).

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

In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the former County Court, Queens County, dated April 26, 1961, which denied after a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered October 27, 1939 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, and imposing sentence. Order reversed on the law and proceeding remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, Criminal Term, for a new hearing and for a determination de nova. No questions of fact were considered. While there was sufficient proof on which the court below could have properly rested its determination, nevertheless it committed reversible error when, upon the denial of defendant’s application, it indicated that it was relying on its own personal knowledge of certain facts, which were not proper subjects for judicial notice (see People v. Weiss, 19 A D 2d 900; cf. People v. Low, 3 A D 2d 979; City of Buffalo v. Beck, 205 Mise. 757; Costello v. Cassidy, 210 N. Y. S. 2d 46; Richardson, Evidence [8th ed.], p. 6). Beldock, P. J., Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld and Hill, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the order on the ground that the record amply supports the determination and that, under all the circumstances, it may not be said that the comments of [900]*900the trial court resulted in substantial prejudice to the defendants; hence, the error, if any, should not affect the judgment of this court (Code Crim. Pro., § 542).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 899, 244 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lawrence-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack