Weiss v. Rosetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weiss v. Rosetti

23 A.D.2d 655, 257 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4568

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 A.D.2d 655 (Weiss v. Rosetti) 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

Weiss v. Rosetti, 23 A.D.2d 655, 257 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4568 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the Appellate Term affirming a judgment of the Civil Court in favor of defendant reversed on the tow and the facts and in the interest of justice and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs to appellant to abide the event. Plaintiff brought an action pursuant to subdivision f of section 435-4.0 of the Administrative Code to recover some $1,042 in cash taken from his person by a police officer after malting an arrest. The trial court found that plaintiff failed to establish, as required by the statute (1) a lawful title or property right in the money, and (2) that he had lawfully obtained possession thereof. Plaintiff’s testimony was that he obtained a large portion of this money by a lo'an from a named lender. It was defendant’s contention that the sum on plaintiff’s person Was money that was given Mm as wagers by several persons in the two days preceding his arrest. The evidence was not sufficient to convict plaintiff of the gambling charges (Penal Law, §§ 986, 986-b) for wMeh he was arrested. While acquittal is not conclusive (cf. Sochemaro v. Rossetti, 6 Mise 2d 23), it does relieve the claimant of the conclusion that his contrary explanation has been discredited. We believe that certain avenues of inquiry were not adequately explored and that a new trial should produce more satisfactory evidence. In the interest of justice there should be a new trial. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Eager and Steuer, JJ.; Stevens, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent only insofar as, upon reversal, I would grant judgment to the plaintiff. That the evidence of the guardian of the peace was not irrefutable is obvious from the dismissal of the criminal charges against the plaintiff. Also equally obvious is the fact that plaintiff has given an uneontradieted explanation of the source of the funds in Ms possession. To now place the additional burden of further testimony upon the dramatis personae of this episode of human conduct is to invite from each ingenious explanations at the least, and at most outright perjury.

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

Determination of the Appellate Term affirming a judgment of the Civil Court in favor of defendant reversed on the tow and the facts and in the interest of justice and a new trial ordered, with $50 costs to appellant to abide the event. Plaintiff brought an action pursuant to subdivision f of section 435-4.0 of the Administrative Code to recover some $1,042 in cash taken from his person by a police officer after malting an arrest. The trial court found that plaintiff failed to establish, as required by the statute (1) a lawful title or property right in the money, and (2) that he had lawfully obtained possession thereof. Plaintiff’s testimony was that he obtained a large portion of this money by a lo'an from a named lender. It was defendant’s contention that the sum on plaintiff’s person Was money that was given Mm as wagers by several persons in the two days preceding his arrest. The evidence was not sufficient to convict plaintiff of the gambling charges (Penal Law, §§ 986, 986-b) for wMeh he was arrested. While acquittal is not conclusive (cf. Sochemaro v. Rossetti, 6 Mise 2d 23), it does relieve the claimant of the conclusion that his contrary explanation has been discredited. We believe that certain avenues of inquiry were not adequately explored and that a new trial should produce more satisfactory evidence. In the interest of justice there should be a new trial. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Eager and Steuer, JJ.; Stevens, J., dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent only insofar as, upon reversal, I would grant judgment to the plaintiff. That the evidence of the guardian of the peace was not irrefutable is obvious from the dismissal of the criminal charges against the plaintiff. Also equally obvious is the fact that plaintiff has given an uneontradieted explanation of the source of the funds in Ms possession. To now place the additional burden of further testimony upon the dramatis personae of this episode of human conduct is to invite from each ingenious explanations at the least, and at most outright perjury.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 655, 257 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weiss-v-rosetti-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack