People v. Strauss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Strauss

272 A.D.2d 1022

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

DecidedOctober 14, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 1022 (People v. Strauss) 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. Strauss, 272 A.D.2d 1022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, convicting defendant of the crime of selling alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person, and sentencing him to pay a fine of $500 or serve three months in the City Prison, reversed on the law and the facts, the information dismissed and the fine remitted. While the proof was sufficient to sustain a finding that the bartender sold alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person, the weight of the evidence was to the effect that the premises were licensed in the name of Sol O. Strauss, Inc., and not in defendant’s name individually. The information in the Magistrate’s Court, as there corrected, was filed against Sol O. Strauss, Inc. The corporation and not the defendant was held for the Court of Special Sessions, and that court was, therefore, without jurisdiction to try the appellant. Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Nolan, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, convicting defendant of the crime of selling alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person, and sentencing him to pay a fine of $500 or serve three months in the City Prison, reversed on the law and the facts, the information dismissed and the fine remitted. While the proof was sufficient to sustain a finding that the bartender sold alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person, the weight of the evidence was to the effect that the premises were licensed in the name of Sol O. Strauss, Inc., and not in defendant’s name individually. The information in the Magistrate’s Court, as there corrected, was filed against Sol O. Strauss, Inc. The corporation and not the defendant was held for the Court of Special Sessions, and that court was, therefore, without jurisdiction to try the appellant. Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Nolan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 1022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-strauss-nyappdiv-1947.