Rossi v. County Court of Schoharie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rossi v. County Court of Schoharie

31 A.D.2d 715, 295 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2563

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 715 (Rossi v. County Court of Schoharie) 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

Rossi v. County Court of Schoharie, 31 A.D.2d 715, 295 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Proceeding under CPLR article 78 for an order prohibiting the respondents from proceeding against petitioner under an indictment charging him with criminally negligent homicide (Penal Law, § 125.10). Petitioner asserts that the statute, amp'ified by the statutory definition of “ Criminal negligence ” (Penal Law, [716]*716§ 15.05, subd. 4), is unconstitutional for vagueness. Other remedies are available to petitioner and since, in our view, the statute is not on its face unconstitutional, petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to the relief requested. (Matter of Fenster v. Criminal Ct. of City of N. Y., 46 Misc 2d 179, affd. 24 A D 2d 840, affd. 17 N Y 2d 641.) Application denied and cross motion by respondents to dismiss petition granted, .without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam.

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

Per Curiam.

Proceeding under CPLR article 78 for an order prohibiting the respondents from proceeding against petitioner under an indictment charging him with criminally negligent homicide (Penal Law, § 125.10). Petitioner asserts that the statute, amp'ified by the statutory definition of “ Criminal negligence ” (Penal Law, [716]*716§ 15.05, subd. 4), is unconstitutional for vagueness. Other remedies are available to petitioner and since, in our view, the statute is not on its face unconstitutional, petitioner has failed to show a clear legal right to the relief requested. (Matter of Fenster v. Criminal Ct. of City of N. Y., 46 Misc 2d 179, affd. 24 A D 2d 840, affd. 17 N Y 2d 641.) Application denied and cross motion by respondents to dismiss petition granted, .without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum Per Curiam.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 715, 295 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rossi-v-county-court-of-schoharie-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack