People v. Valvo

265 A.D. 722, 40 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6400
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 9, 1943
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D. 722 (People v. Valvo) 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. Valvo, 265 A.D. 722, 40 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1943).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The refusal of the District Attorney to issue a certificate that the People had lost no rights and had not been prejudiced by the failure of the surety to produce the prisoner was neither capricious nor unreasonable. The prisoner failed to appear for sentence on June 27,1941, or thereafter, notwithstanding that he was at liberty until March 6, 1942, at which time he was arrested for a crime committed in the State of Michigan and subsequently sentenced there to a prison term of not less than five nor more than fourteen years. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the People have lost no rights.

[723]*723The present case differs altogether from People v. Baldwin (264 App. Div. 848). There the prisoner on June 20, 1941, had furnished a bond of the surety for $300 for her appearance on June 23, 1941. On that day the prisoner failed to appear but the court was informed that she was then in New Jersey arranging bail to answer other charges pending against her there. Nevertheless the bond was declared forfeited by the Magistrate. On the following day, the defendant appeared and á new bond was given in the sum of $500. A bond in the amount of $500 having been substituted for the bond for $300 and the prisoner having appeared only one day after the date on which her appearance was required under the earlier bond, it is evident that the People had lost no rights.

The order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements and the motion denied.

Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Cohn, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements and the motion denied. Settle order on notice.

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

Related

State v. Reed
133 N.W.2d 591 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
265 A.D. 722, 40 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1943 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-valvo-nyappdiv-1943.