People v. Rodriquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rodriquez

2 A.D.2d 996, 158 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3395

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

DecidedDecember 21, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 996 (People v. Rodriquez) 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. Rodriquez, 2 A.D.2d 996, 158 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3395 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Queens County, convicting appellant of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny, and from the sentence imposed. Judgment reversed upon the facts and new trial ordered, on the authority of People v. Benoit (ante, p. 995). No separate appeal lies from the sentence, which has been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment. Beldoek, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Wenzel, J., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment, with the following memorandum: Although the court undoubtedly had the power, in its discretion, to reopen the case to hear the additional testimony, we are unable to say that it was an abuse of discretion, under the circumstances, not to have done so.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Queens County, convicting appellant of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny, and from the sentence imposed. Judgment reversed upon the facts and new trial ordered, on the authority of People v. Benoit (ante, p. 995). No separate appeal lies from the sentence, which has been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment. Beldoek, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Wenzel, J., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment, with the following memorandum: Although the court undoubtedly had the power, in its discretion, to reopen the case to hear the additional testimony, we are unable to say that it was an abuse of discretion, under the circumstances, not to have done so.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 996, 158 N.Y.S.2d 69, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rodriquez-nyappdiv-1956.