People v. Phillips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Phillips

20 A.D.2d 629, 245 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4548

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 629 (People v. Phillips) 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. Phillips, 20 A.D.2d 629, 245 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4548 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for reargument denied. The defendant’s conviction in 1941 of robbery in first degree was affirmed by this court (266 App. Div. 830) and by the Court of Appeals (292 N. Y. 506). As we pointed out in our memorandum denying his motion to vacate the order of this court affirming his conviction (17 A D 2d 815), he had moved in 1959 in the Court of Appeals for reargument in that court, presenting there the contentions as to deprivation of due process identical with those urged in this court as grounds for vacating the order here; and the Court of Appeals denied his motion (7 N Y 2d 756). Where, as here, the defendant’s conviction has been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and said court, in denying reargument has evidently determined adversely to defendant’s contentions the questions raised, we believe that defendant’s application, if there be any merit to it in view of recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court, should be one for reargument in the [630]*630Court of Appeals of his appeal to that court and for the vacatur of the affirmance there of his judgment of conviction. Concur—Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.

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

Motion for reargument denied. The defendant’s conviction in 1941 of robbery in first degree was affirmed by this court (266 App. Div. 830) and by the Court of Appeals (292 N. Y. 506). As we pointed out in our memorandum denying his motion to vacate the order of this court affirming his conviction (17 A D 2d 815), he had moved in 1959 in the Court of Appeals for reargument in that court, presenting there the contentions as to deprivation of due process identical with those urged in this court as grounds for vacating the order here; and the Court of Appeals denied his motion (7 N Y 2d 756). Where, as here, the defendant’s conviction has been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and said court, in denying reargument has evidently determined adversely to defendant’s contentions the questions raised, we believe that defendant’s application, if there be any merit to it in view of recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court, should be one for reargument in the [630]*630Court of Appeals of his appeal to that court and for the vacatur of the affirmance there of his judgment of conviction. Concur—Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 629, 245 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-phillips-nyappdiv-1964.