People v. Prosser

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Prosser

285 A.D. 997, 138 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6428

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 997 (People v. Prosser) 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. Prosser, 285 A.D. 997, 138 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6428 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of conviction affirmed. Memorandum: While we are holding that the judgment of conviction was amply supported by the evidence, we are not unaware of the defendant’s contention that he was not granted a “ speedy ” trial of this particular indictment and that his 1953 conviction should for such reason be set aside. The answer, of course, is that he had a remedy provided by section 668 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which he failed to proceed. However, in affirming the judgment of conviction herein, we do not overlook, and do not condone, the failure, on the part of prosecuting authorities in not too infrequent instances, in disposing of indictments promptly and expeditiously, rather than to carry them undisposed of indefinitely. Where a defendant is available, the prosecuting office should be diligent in disposing of such a case, or cases, promptly and with due dispatch. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment of Oswego County Court, convicting defendant of the crimes of burglary, third degree, and grand larceny, first degree.) Present — MeCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.

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

Judgment of conviction affirmed. Memorandum: While we are holding that the judgment of conviction was amply supported by the evidence, we are not unaware of the defendant’s contention that he was not granted a “ speedy ” trial of this particular indictment and that his 1953 conviction should for such reason be set aside. The answer, of course, is that he had a remedy provided by section 668 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which he failed to proceed. However, in affirming the judgment of conviction herein, we do not overlook, and do not condone, the failure, on the part of prosecuting authorities in not too infrequent instances, in disposing of indictments promptly and expeditiously, rather than to carry them undisposed of indefinitely. Where a defendant is available, the prosecuting office should be diligent in disposing of such a case, or cases, promptly and with due dispatch. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment of Oswego County Court, convicting defendant of the crimes of burglary, third degree, and grand larceny, first degree.) Present — MeCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 997, 138 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-prosser-nyappdiv-1955.