People v. West

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. West

36 A.D.2d 807, 320 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4295

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

DecidedApril 13, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 36 A.D.2d 807 (People v. West) 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. West, 36 A.D.2d 807, 320 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

[808]*808Concur-—■ Capozzoli, J. P., McGivern, Nunez and Kupferman, JJ.; McNally, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to reverse and order a new trial under constraint of People v. Zabrocky (26 N Y 2d 530). Prior to the hearing, counsel requested a copy of the minutes of the prospective Huntley hearing. The court denied the motion. The District Attorney, conceding the error, argues that it was harmless. In People v. Zabroeky (supra, p. 536) the Court of Appeals said: “The People, conceding that appellants were denied this fundamental right [a copy of the minutes of the suppression hearing], have asked us to hold that the denial was harmless because in their view the minutes would have been of limited use. We cannot see any merit in this contention, because the use to which a requested transcript might have been put is irrelevant.”

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

[808]*808Concur-—■ Capozzoli, J. P., McGivern, Nunez and Kupferman, JJ.; McNally, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to reverse and order a new trial under constraint of People v. Zabrocky (26 N Y 2d 530). Prior to the hearing, counsel requested a copy of the minutes of the prospective Huntley hearing. The court denied the motion. The District Attorney, conceding the error, argues that it was harmless. In People v. Zabroeky (supra, p. 536) the Court of Appeals said: “The People, conceding that appellants were denied this fundamental right [a copy of the minutes of the suppression hearing], have asked us to hold that the denial was harmless because in their view the minutes would have been of limited use. We cannot see any merit in this contention, because the use to which a requested transcript might have been put is irrelevant.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.2d 807, 320 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-west-nyappdiv-1971.