People v. Ramos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ramos

31 A.D.2d 815, 297 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4694

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 815 (People v. Ramos) 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. Ramos, 31 A.D.2d 815, 297 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In a coram nobis proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 9, 1966, which denied the application without a hearing. Order affirmed. In our view, defendant was not entitled to a hearing on his claim .that he was demed a fair trial because he did not fully understand English and did not have the services of an official "interpreter who could sit by Ms • side and translate the entire proceedings. There is presently no legal requirement that an interpreter must sit with a defendant who is unfamiliar with the English language and consult with him throughout the entire trial. With respect to defendant’s other claims, insofar as they may be gleaned from his moving papers, we state simply that he has failed to set forth any facts in support of his conclusory allegations. Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, 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, Kings County, dated November 9, 1966, which denied the application without a hearing. Order affirmed. In our view, defendant was not entitled to a hearing on his claim .that he was demed a fair trial because he did not fully understand English and did not have the services of an official "interpreter who could sit by Ms • side and translate the entire proceedings. There is presently no legal requirement that an interpreter must sit with a defendant who is unfamiliar with the English language and consult with him throughout the entire trial. With respect to defendant’s other claims, insofar as they may be gleaned from his moving papers, we state simply that he has failed to set forth any facts in support of his conclusory allegations. Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 815, 297 N.Y.S.2d 886, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ramos-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack