People v. Tylutke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tylutke

4 A.D.2d 707, 164 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4972

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

DecidedJune 24, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 707 (People v. Tylutke) 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. Tylutke, 4 A.D.2d 707, 164 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4972 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, convicting appellant of violating section 1140 of the Penal Law. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel and Beldock, JJ., concur; Murphy and Hallinan, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the information, with the following memorandum: Aside from the grave doubt regarding the identification of appellant as the one who'committed the alleged crime, the proof indicated that the act complained of was committed at 3:00 p.m. on a city street, that [708]*708complainant did not report the incident to the police, that appellant was not identified until 15 days thereafter, when complainant allegedly saw appellant at 6:30 p.m. on March 6, 1956, when it was dark and when she was riding with a friend, and at which time appellant was dressed in clothes entirely different from those worn by him on the day of the alleged incident. In view of these facts the proof was insufficient to establish appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Borough of Queens, convicting appellant of violating section 1140 of the Penal Law. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel and Beldock, JJ., concur; Murphy and Hallinan, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the information, with the following memorandum: Aside from the grave doubt regarding the identification of appellant as the one who'committed the alleged crime, the proof indicated that the act complained of was committed at 3:00 p.m. on a city street, that [708]*708complainant did not report the incident to the police, that appellant was not identified until 15 days thereafter, when complainant allegedly saw appellant at 6:30 p.m. on March 6, 1956, when it was dark and when she was riding with a friend, and at which time appellant was dressed in clothes entirely different from those worn by him on the day of the alleged incident. In view of these facts the proof was insufficient to establish appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 707, 164 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tylutke-nyappdiv-1957.