People v. Mazzella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mazzella

30 A.D.2d 681, 291 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3808

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

DecidedJune 10, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 681 (People v. Mazzella) 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. Mazzella, 30 A.D.2d 681, 291 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the County Court, Orange County, dated October 10, 1967, which denied defendant’s coram nobis motion without a hearing, affirmed. On the day when the hearing on defendant’s first comm nobis motion was to be held, defendant’s counsel, in open court and in the presence of defendant, withdrew the allegations as to the prosecutor’s willful use of perjured testimony, stating that he had no faith in the allegations. The second coram nobis application (now under review) was made on the same grounds as the first. In our opinion, the County Court did not err in denying the second motion without a hearing (cf. People v. Sulivan, 4 N Y 2d 472; People v. Mazzella, 13 N Y 2d 997; People ex rel. Maher v. Fay, 27 A D 2d 853). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the County Court, Orange County, dated October 10, 1967, which denied defendant’s coram nobis motion without a hearing, affirmed. On the day when the hearing on defendant’s first comm nobis motion was to be held, defendant’s counsel, in open court and in the presence of defendant, withdrew the allegations as to the prosecutor’s willful use of perjured testimony, stating that he had no faith in the allegations. The second coram nobis application (now under review) was made on the same grounds as the first. In our opinion, the County Court did not err in denying the second motion without a hearing (cf. People v. Sulivan, 4 N Y 2d 472; People v. Mazzella, 13 N Y 2d 997; People ex rel. Maher v. Fay, 27 A D 2d 853). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 681, 291 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mazzella-nyappdiv-1968.