People v. Wasserbach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wasserbach

271 A.D.2d 756

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 756 (People v. Wasserbach) 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. Wasserbach, 271 A.D.2d 756 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the County Court, Kings County, which dismissed an indictment charging defendant with attempted rape in the first degree and assault in the second degree. The instant indictment followed the dismissal of a prior indictment for rape in the first degree, which was dismissed because of the absence of the supporting proof required by section 2013 of the Penal Law. The testimony of the complaining witness before the Grand Jury on both occasions indicated that the rape had been consummated, but was uncorroborated. Order reversed on the law, the motion denied, and the indictment reinstated. In our opinion, the evidence adduced before the Grand Jury is sufficient to sustain "the indictment. (People v. Chimino, 270 App. Div. 114, affd. 296 N. Y. 554; People v. lavormina, 257 N. Y. 84; Penal Law, § 260.) Lewis, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Aldrich and Nolan, JJ., concur. [185 Mise. 67.]

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

Appeal from an order of the County Court, Kings County, which dismissed an indictment charging defendant with attempted rape in the first degree and assault in the second degree. The instant indictment followed the dismissal of a prior indictment for rape in the first degree, which was dismissed because of the absence of the supporting proof required by section 2013 of the Penal Law. The testimony of the complaining witness before the Grand Jury on both occasions indicated that the rape had been consummated, but was uncorroborated. Order reversed on the law, the motion denied, and the indictment reinstated. In our opinion, the evidence adduced before the Grand Jury is sufficient to sustain "the indictment. (People v. Chimino, 270 App. Div. 114, affd. 296 N. Y. 554; People v. lavormina, 257 N. Y. 84; Penal Law, § 260.) Lewis, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Aldrich and Nolan, JJ., concur. [185 Mise. 67.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wasserbach-nyappdiv-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack