People v. Pavia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pavia

24 A.D.2d 517, 261 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3771

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

DecidedJune 28, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 517 (People v. Pavia) 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. Pavia, 24 A.D.2d 517, 261 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 29, 1965, which denied without a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of said court rendered November 9,1963 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, and imposing sentence. The judgment of conviction was previously affirmed by this court (23 A D 2d 632). Order affirmed. There is not sufficient proof of perjury by the detective who made the arrest, the search, and the seizure to warrant a hearing. In any event, the remedy of coram nobis may not be invoked to present evidence which could have been presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress evidence, but which defendant did not present for reasons which he does not now disclose (Matter of Hogan v. Court of General Sessions, 296 N. Y. 1, 6; People v. Russo, 284 App. Div. 763; People v. Moore, 284 App. Div. 925). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Hopkins and Benjamin, 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, Queens County, entered March 29, 1965, which denied without a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of said court rendered November 9,1963 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, and imposing sentence. The judgment of conviction was previously affirmed by this court (23 A D 2d 632). Order affirmed. There is not sufficient proof of perjury by the detective who made the arrest, the search, and the seizure to warrant a hearing. In any event, the remedy of coram nobis may not be invoked to present evidence which could have been presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress evidence, but which defendant did not present for reasons which he does not now disclose (Matter of Hogan v. Court of General Sessions, 296 N. Y. 1, 6; People v. Russo, 284 App. Div. 763; People v. Moore, 284 App. Div. 925). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 517, 261 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pavia-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack