People v. Manasek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Manasek

37 A.D.2d 999, 327 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2924

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

DecidedNovember 29, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 999 (People v. Manasek) 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. Manasek, 37 A.D.2d 999, 327 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the County Court, Westchester County, entered March 4, 1970, affirmed insofar as on reargument, it denied appellant’s coram nobis application. No opinion. Purported appeal from an order of the same court, dated September 30, 1970, which denied another coram nobis application by appellant, dismissed. Having failed to serve and file a timely notice of appeal from this order, defendant’s purported appeal therefrom must be dismissed. We have, nevertheless, considered the merits and, were the appeal properly before us, we would have affirmed, since the main question raised was decided, as implicitly presented, in a prior appeal (People v. Manasek, 32 A D 2d 614). Rabin, P. J., HopMns, Munder, Latham and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the County Court, Westchester County, entered March 4, 1970, affirmed insofar as on reargument, it denied appellant’s coram nobis application. No opinion. Purported appeal from an order of the same court, dated September 30, 1970, which denied another coram nobis application by appellant, dismissed. Having failed to serve and file a timely notice of appeal from this order, defendant’s purported appeal therefrom must be dismissed. We have, nevertheless, considered the merits and, were the appeal properly before us, we would have affirmed, since the main question raised was decided, as implicitly presented, in a prior appeal (People v. Manasek, 32 A D 2d 614). Rabin, P. J., HopMns, Munder, Latham and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 999, 327 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-manasek-nyappdiv-1971.