People v. Stuyvesant Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stuyvesant Insurance

72 A.D.2d 510, 421 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13530

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.2d 510 (People v. Stuyvesant Insurance) 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. Stuyvesant Insurance, 72 A.D.2d 510, 421 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered February 22, 1979, modified, in the exercise of discretion in the interest of justice, to grant the motion for remission of forfeiture to the extent of $9,800 thereof, without costs. It appears that the defendant may well have misunderstood the arraignment court’s direction to return on a specific date, and, further, that counsel who was to be replaced—the reason for adjournment—did not appear on the adjourned date. Defendant, who had been at home, appeared as soon as notified. There is no affirmative evidence tending to show that failure to appear was other than an inadvertence. The prosecutor conceded on argument that the People lost no rights whatever. The District Attorney consented on two separate occasions to the disposition herein made, i.e., imposition of $200 in "costs”, but the court refused to remit any portion of the forfeiture. We regard this not as abuse of discretion in these circumstances, but rather a refusal to exercise it at all. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Markewich and Lynch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered February 22, 1979, modified, in the exercise of discretion in the interest of justice, to grant the motion for remission of forfeiture to the extent of $9,800 thereof, without costs. It appears that the defendant may well have misunderstood the arraignment court’s direction to return on a specific date, and, further, that counsel who was to be replaced—the reason for adjournment—did not appear on the adjourned date. Defendant, who had been at home, appeared as soon as notified. There is no affirmative evidence tending to show that failure to appear was other than an inadvertence. The prosecutor conceded on argument that the People lost no rights whatever. The District Attorney consented on two separate occasions to the disposition herein made, i.e., imposition of $200 in "costs”, but the court refused to remit any portion of the forfeiture. We regard this not as abuse of discretion in these circumstances, but rather a refusal to exercise it at all. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Markewich and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 510, 421 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stuyvesant-insurance-nyappdiv-1979.