People v. Nentarz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nentarz

235 A.D. 660

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Nentarz. Read the opinion of the Court — 239 A.D. 109 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 15, 1932·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed. The order denying the motion to change the place of trial, in our opinion, is not appealable. (People v. Brindell, 194 App. Div. 776.) But even if it were appealable, the order should stand, for the papers fall far short of showing that a fair and impartial trial of the defendant upon the indictment cannot be had in Monroe county. What the affidavits do show, however, if believed, is an outrageous abuse of the defendant’s rights which, if true, would merit the severest condemnation. All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Crouch, Taylor, Edgcomb and Crosby, JJ. [142 Misc. 477.]

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

Per Curiam.

Appeal dismissed. The order denying the motion to change the place of trial, in our opinion, is not appealable. (People v. Brindell, 194 App. Div. 776.) But even if it were appealable, the order should stand, for the papers fall far short of showing that a fair and impartial trial of the defendant upon the indictment cannot be had in Monroe county. What the affidavits do show, however, if believed, is an outrageous abuse of the defendant’s rights which, if true, would merit the severest condemnation. All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Crouch, Taylor, Edgcomb and Crosby, JJ. [142 Misc. 477.]

People v. Nentarz, 235 A.D. 660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

235 A.D. 660 (People v. Nentarz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related