People v. Rytel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rytel

259 A.D. 755, 18 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6549

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D. 755 (People v. Rytel) 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. Rytel, 259 A.D. 755, 18 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Conviction of assault in the second degree reversed and modified to a conviction of assault in the third degree, and as so modified affirmed, and the judgment of this court is that the sentence be reduced to the time already served by the defendant and the defendant be discharged. Hill, P. J., Crapser and Bliss, JJ., concur; Heffernan, J., dissents, in a memorandum in which Schenck, J., concurs. Heffernan, J. I dissent and vote to affirm the judgment under review. The evidence fully justifies the verdict of the jury and the record is barren of any reversible error. There is no proof in the case to warrant a modification of the judgment. Defendant is either guilty of the crime of which he was convicted or not guilty of any offense. On no theory can it be said that only a charge of assault in the third degree has been proven. The action of the majority of the court in [756]*756changing the result reached in the trial court is without legal authority and merely constitutes usurpation of power. Schenck, J., concurs with Hefíernan, J.

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

Conviction of assault in the second degree reversed and modified to a conviction of assault in the third degree, and as so modified affirmed, and the judgment of this court is that the sentence be reduced to the time already served by the defendant and the defendant be discharged. Hill, P. J., Crapser and Bliss, JJ., concur; Heffernan, J., dissents, in a memorandum in which Schenck, J., concurs. Heffernan, J. I dissent and vote to affirm the judgment under review. The evidence fully justifies the verdict of the jury and the record is barren of any reversible error. There is no proof in the case to warrant a modification of the judgment. Defendant is either guilty of the crime of which he was convicted or not guilty of any offense. On no theory can it be said that only a charge of assault in the third degree has been proven. The action of the majority of the court in [756]*756changing the result reached in the trial court is without legal authority and merely constitutes usurpation of power. Schenck, J., concurs with Hefíernan, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 755, 18 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rytel-nyappdiv-1940.