People v. Reade

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reade

33 A.D.2d 577, 305 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2998

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 577 (People v. Reade) 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. Reade, 33 A.D.2d 577, 305 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2998 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

By a previous decision of this court rendered January 10, 1966 on this appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Count, Richmond County, rendered February 21, 1964, this case was remittted to the trial court for a Huntley hearing and the appeal has been held in abeyance' in the interim (People v. Reade, 25 A D 2d 438). The hearing has been held and a decision thereon has been rendered adverse to defendant, dated December 13, 1966. Judgment affirmed (Code Crim. Pro., § 542). We agree with appellant that the trial court should have assisted him in the production of Fire Marshal Tiedemann as a witness at the trial, but, in view of Tiedemann’s testimony at the subsequent Huntley hearing, where appellant was represented by counsel and had a full opportunity to demonstrate any weakness in that testimony, we think the error may me disregarded as harmless. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

By a previous decision of this court rendered January 10, 1966 on this appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Count, Richmond County, rendered February 21, 1964, this case was remittted to the trial court for a Huntley hearing and the appeal has been held in abeyance' in the interim (People v. Reade, 25 A D 2d 438). The hearing has been held and a decision thereon has been rendered adverse to defendant, dated December 13, 1966. Judgment affirmed (Code Crim. Pro., § 542). We agree with appellant that the trial court should have assisted him in the production of Fire Marshal Tiedemann as a witness at the trial, but, in view of Tiedemann’s testimony at the subsequent Huntley hearing, where appellant was represented by counsel and had a full opportunity to demonstrate any weakness in that testimony, we think the error may me disregarded as harmless. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 577, 305 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reade-nyappdiv-1969.