People v. Sullivan

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Sullivan

280 N.E.2d 98, 29 N.Y.2d 937, 329 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 1571

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 13, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 280 N.E.2d 98 (People v. Sullivan) 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. Sullivan, 280 N.E.2d 98, 29 N.Y.2d 937, 329 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 1571 (N.Y. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion granted and appeal dismissed. This court may entertain an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division reversing a judgment of conviction and ordering a new trial only if such reversal be on the law alone (Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, p. 754). Where an Appellate Division order recites that its reversal is “on the law ’ ’, the court may look to the opinion to determine whether the Appellate Division reversed on the facts or in the exercise of discretion (People v. Woodruff, 27 N Y 2d 801, 802; People v. Rainey, 27 N Y 2d 748; cf. People v. Rossi, 11 N Y 2d 787). But another rule applies where the Appellate Division expressly reversed on the law and the facts. In such case the court has not looked beyond the recital in the order, and has therefore dismissed (People v. Tomlin, 2 N Y 2d 758; cf. People v. Cohen, 5 N Y 2d 282, 286-288; Cohen and Karger, op. cit., supra, pp. 754, 766-767). In this case, the order recites that reversal was “ on the facts ”, as well as on the law, and, therefore, there is no alternative but to dismiss the appeal. Moreover, the indictment was not dismissed and the action was remanded for further proceedings, thus in effect directing a new trial. The direction of a new trial might, in any event, have been ordered in the discretion of the Appellate Division, and therefore involved a question not resting on the law alone. (People v. Tomlin, supra; CPL 450.90, subd. 2; 470.20, subd. 1.)

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

Motion granted and appeal dismissed. This court may entertain an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division reversing a judgment of conviction and ordering a new trial only if such reversal be on the law alone (Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, p. 754). Where an Appellate Division order recites that its reversal is “on the law ’ ’, the court may look to the opinion to determine whether the Appellate Division reversed on the facts or in the exercise of discretion (People v. Woodruff, 27 N Y 2d 801, 802; People v. Rainey, 27 N Y 2d 748; cf. People v. Rossi, 11 N Y 2d 787). But another rule applies where the Appellate Division expressly reversed on the law and the facts. In such case the court has not looked beyond the recital in the order, and has therefore dismissed (People v. Tomlin, 2 N Y 2d 758; cf. People v. Cohen, 5 N Y 2d 282, 286-288; Cohen and Karger, op. cit., supra, pp. 754, 766-767). In this case, the order recites that reversal was “ on the facts ”, as well as on the law, and, therefore, there is no alternative but to dismiss the appeal. Moreover, the indictment was not dismissed and the action was remanded for further proceedings, thus in effect directing a new trial. The direction of a new trial might, in any event, have been ordered in the discretion of the Appellate Division, and therefore involved a question not resting on the law alone. (People v. Tomlin, supra; CPL 450.90, subd. 2; 470.20, subd. 1.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 N.E.2d 98, 29 N.Y.2d 937, 329 N.Y.S.2d 325, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 1571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sullivan-ny-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack