People v. Seinfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Seinfeld

283 A.D. 1076, 131 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6362

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

DecidedJune 7, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D. 1076 (People v. Seinfeld) 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. Seinfeld, 283 A.D. 1076, 131 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6362 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant appeals from a judgment of a City Magistrate, sitting as a Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, convicting her of violating sections 8, 170, 300, 301 and 302 of the Multiple Dwelling Law, in that she unlawfully altered and converted a private dwelling into a multiple dwelling for use by four families without a permit. Defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of $250 or to serve thirty days in the City Prison. The fine was paid. Judgment reversed on the law, fine remitted, and a new trial ordered. At the trial defendant offered in evidence (a) two letters from the department of housing and buildings, and (b) three certificates issued by the County Clerk of Kings County, which documents defendant claims purported to show that the premises were occupied by three separate families prior to the enactment of the Multiple Dwelling Law, and by reason thereof were not subject to the provisions of the statute subsequently enacted. The court excluded this offer of proof. While it was proper to exclude the two letters from the department as being irrelevant, we hold, without passing upon the conelusiveness of these exhibits, that the refusal of the court to admit into evidence the documents from the County Clerk’s office was substantial error. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.

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

Defendant appeals from a judgment of a City Magistrate, sitting as a Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, convicting her of violating sections 8, 170, 300, 301 and 302 of the Multiple Dwelling Law, in that she unlawfully altered and converted a private dwelling into a multiple dwelling for use by four families without a permit. Defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of $250 or to serve thirty days in the City Prison. The fine was paid. Judgment reversed on the law, fine remitted, and a new trial ordered. At the trial defendant offered in evidence (a) two letters from the department of housing and buildings, and (b) three certificates issued by the County Clerk of Kings County, which documents defendant claims purported to show that the premises were occupied by three separate families prior to the enactment of the Multiple Dwelling Law, and by reason thereof were not subject to the provisions of the statute subsequently enacted. The court excluded this offer of proof. While it was proper to exclude the two letters from the department as being irrelevant, we hold, without passing upon the conelusiveness of these exhibits, that the refusal of the court to admit into evidence the documents from the County Clerk’s office was substantial error. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 1076, 131 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-seinfeld-nyappdiv-1954.