People v. Rothstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rothstein

31 A.D.2d 935, 298 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4506

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

DecidedMarch 3, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 935 (People v. Rothstein) 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. Rothstein, 31 A.D.2d 935, 298 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4506 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of -the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 24, 1967, which granted defendant Rothstein’s motion to dismiss the indictment as to him. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, motion denied and indietmen-t reinstated. The learned Justice at Criminal Term dismissed the indictment on the ground that the evidence presented to the Grand Jury w-as insufficient to sustain it. It is undisputed that the evidence would be sufficient if the testimony of Harvey Wohl, respondent’s accomplice, were corroborated by such other proof as satisfied the requirements -of section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In our opinion, the recordings of conversations between Wohl and respondent constituted such sufficient corroboration, when they are read in light of the guidelines laid down by People y. Dixon (231 N. Y. Ill, 116); People v. Ruberto (10 N Y 2d 428, cert. den. 371 U. S. 842); People v. Fiore (12 N Y 2d 188); People v. Mirenda (23 N Y 2d 439); People v. Robinson (28 A D 2d 916); People v. Watford (19 A D 2d 731). Beldoek, P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of -the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 24, 1967, which granted defendant Rothstein’s motion to dismiss the indictment as to him. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, motion denied and indietmen-t reinstated. The learned Justice at Criminal Term dismissed the indictment on the ground that the evidence presented to the Grand Jury w-as insufficient to sustain it. It is undisputed that the evidence would be sufficient if the testimony of Harvey Wohl, respondent’s accomplice, were corroborated by such other proof as satisfied the requirements -of section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In our opinion, the recordings of conversations between Wohl and respondent constituted such sufficient corroboration, when they are read in light of the guidelines laid down by People y. Dixon (231 N. Y. Ill, 116); People v. Ruberto (10 N Y 2d 428, cert. den. 371 U. S. 842); People v. Fiore (12 N Y 2d 188); People v. Mirenda (23 N Y 2d 439); People v. Robinson (28 A D 2d 916); People v. Watford (19 A D 2d 731). Beldoek, P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 935, 298 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rothstein-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack