People v. Lupo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lupo

34 A.D.2d 1019, 314 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4313

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

DecidedJune 29, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 1019 (People v. Lupo) 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. Lupo, 34 A.D.2d 1019, 314 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 10, 1970, which denied the application, without a hearing. Order reversed, on the law, and defendant’s motion granted to the extent of directing that a hearing ¡be held. No questions of fact have been considered. The petition and the district attorney’s position with respect thereto warranted a hearing; the record did not conclusively demonstrate the falsity of the petition (People v. Guariglia, 303 N. Y. 338). The district attorney agreed to a hearing provided that the order of Mr. Justice Leibowitz denying the prior petition “ with prejudice ” did not preclude a hearing on the instant renewed petition. There was no preclusion (Matter of Bojinoff v. People, 299 N. Y. 145). 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

In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 10, 1970, which denied the application, without a hearing. Order reversed, on the law, and defendant’s motion granted to the extent of directing that a hearing ¡be held. No questions of fact have been considered. The petition and the district attorney’s position with respect thereto warranted a hearing; the record did not conclusively demonstrate the falsity of the petition (People v. Guariglia, 303 N. Y. 338). The district attorney agreed to a hearing provided that the order of Mr. Justice Leibowitz denying the prior petition “ with prejudice ” did not preclude a hearing on the instant renewed petition. There was no preclusion (Matter of Bojinoff v. People, 299 N. Y. 145). Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 1019, 314 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lupo-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack