Rivera v. Simmons

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rivera v. Simmons

264 A.D. 887, 35 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5258

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

DecidedJune 22, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 887 (Rivera v. Simmons) 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

Rivera v. Simmons, 264 A.D. 887, 35 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Appellate Term, affirming an order and judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, affirmed, with costs. (See Rader v. Simmons, ante, p. 415, decided herewith.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell and Johnston, JJ., concur; Taylor and Close, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the order of the Appellate Term and the order and judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, and the direct judgment in favor of defendant, dismissing the complaint. The bare allegation of possession, thereby inferring legal possession, made in the moving affidavit, is overborne by the uneontradicted [888]*888affidavit of the arresting officer that the plaintiff admitted at the time of his arrest that the money in suit was actually received by the plaintiff that day as the collections made by policy collectors and turned over to him. It is thus indubitably established that these moneys are the “ proceeds of crime ” and for the reason stated in the dissenting memorandum in Rader v. Simmons (ante, pp. 415, 421), decided herewith, the plaintiff has no claim thereto and judgment should have been ¡ granted to the defendant. [See post, p. 958; 265 App. Div. 937.]

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

Order of the Appellate Term, affirming an order and judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, affirmed, with costs. (See Rader v. Simmons, ante, p. 415, decided herewith.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell and Johnston, JJ., concur; Taylor and Close, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the order of the Appellate Term and the order and judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, and the direct judgment in favor of defendant, dismissing the complaint. The bare allegation of possession, thereby inferring legal possession, made in the moving affidavit, is overborne by the uneontradicted [888]*888affidavit of the arresting officer that the plaintiff admitted at the time of his arrest that the money in suit was actually received by the plaintiff that day as the collections made by policy collectors and turned over to him. It is thus indubitably established that these moneys are the “ proceeds of crime ” and for the reason stated in the dissenting memorandum in Rader v. Simmons (ante, pp. 415, 421), decided herewith, the plaintiff has no claim thereto and judgment should have been ¡ granted to the defendant. [See post, p. 958; 265 App. Div. 937.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 887, 35 N.Y.S.2d 921, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-simmons-nyappdiv-1942.