People v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Schwartz

273 A.D. 823, 76 N.Y.S.2d 336, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4802

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1948

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D. 823 (People v. Schwartz) 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. Schwartz, 273 A.D. 823, 76 N.Y.S.2d 336, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of a city magistrate, holding a Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, convicting the defendant of a violation of the Multiple Dwelling Law and imposing a fine, reversed on the law, the information dismissed and the fine remitted. There was no proof of [824]*824compliance with subdivision 1 of section 326 of the Multiple Dwelling Law, in respect of the service of a notice or an order upon the defendant relative to the alleged violations. Proof of timely service thereof was indispensable to a finding of guilt. (People v. Sagat, 204 App. Div. 485.) The cases invoked. by the respondent are not to the contrary. The case of Tenement Souse Department v. Weil (76 Mise. 273, 275), relied upon in People v. Whitelow (166 N. Y. S. 141 [not officially published], is in accord with the later but more authoritative case of People v. Sagat (supra). Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of a city magistrate, holding a Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, convicting the defendant of a violation of the Multiple Dwelling Law and imposing a fine, reversed on the law, the information dismissed and the fine remitted. There was no proof of [824]*824compliance with subdivision 1 of section 326 of the Multiple Dwelling Law, in respect of the service of a notice or an order upon the defendant relative to the alleged violations. Proof of timely service thereof was indispensable to a finding of guilt. (People v. Sagat, 204 App. Div. 485.) The cases invoked. by the respondent are not to the contrary. The case of Tenement Souse Department v. Weil (76 Mise. 273, 275), relied upon in People v. Whitelow (166 N. Y. S. 141 [not officially published], is in accord with the later but more authoritative case of People v. Sagat (supra). Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D. 823, 76 N.Y.S.2d 336, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack