People v. . Schmidt

New York Court of Appeals

People v. . Schmidt

111 N.E. 1095, 216 N.Y. 762, 1916 N.Y. LEXIS 1554

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 7, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 111 N.E. 1095 (People v. . Schmidt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. . Schmidt, 111 N.E. 1095, 216 N.Y. 762, 1916 N.Y. LEXIS 1554 (N.Y. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This motion is irregular since such an application requires notice to the district attorney and we have no evidence that the prescribed notice has been given. (Rule XX of Rules of the Court of Appeals.) Notwithstanding this irregularity, in view of the fact that the execution of the judgment is fixed for the week beginning next' Monday, we have looked carefully into the merits and find nothing which would justify us in granting a re-argument. In affirming the judgment this court held that the defendant was not harmed by an error relating to a defense which he alleged and admitted under oath to be fraudulent and a sham. His counsel now insists that by so holding we deprived him of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. We can perceive no basis for this assertion. The request of counsel for a certificate that a Federal question was involved in the appeal cannot be complied with for it is not the fact. The motion for a re-argument must be denied.

All concur.

Motion denied.

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

Per Curiam.

This motion is irregular since such an application requires notice to the district attorney and we have no evidence that the prescribed notice has been given. (Rule XX of Rules of the Court of Appeals.) Notwithstanding this irregularity, in view of the fact that the execution of the judgment is fixed for the week beginning next' Monday, we have looked carefully into the merits and find nothing which would justify us in granting a re-argument. In affirming the judgment this court held that the defendant was not harmed by an error relating to a defense which he alleged and admitted under oath to be fraudulent and a sham. His counsel now insists that by so holding we deprived him of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. We can perceive no basis for this assertion. The request of counsel for a certificate that a Federal question was involved in the appeal cannot be complied with for it is not the fact. The motion for a re-argument must be denied.

All concur.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 N.E. 1095, 216 N.Y. 762, 1916 N.Y. LEXIS 1554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-schmidt-ny-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack