Abbott v. Rose

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New York)
Writing for the CourtCHARLES LAMBIASE
Citation40 Misc.2d 64,242 N.Y.S.2d 773
Decision Date01 April 1963
PartiesApplication of John C. ABBOTT, Petitioner, v. Charles G. ROSE, individually and as Justice of the Court of Special Sessions, Town of Victor, County of Ontario and State of New York, Respondent.

Page 773

242 N.Y.S.2d 773
40 Misc.2d 64
Application of John C. ABBOTT, Petitioner,
v.
Charles G. ROSE, individually and as Justice of the Court of
Special Sessions, Town of Victor, County of
Ontario and State of New York, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Monroe County.
April 1, 1963.

Page 774

[40 Misc.2d 65] Maas, Weinstein & Hutchings, Rochester, for petitioner.

Robert P. Kennedy, Asst. Dist. Atty. of Ontario County, for respondent.

CHARLES LAMBIASE, Justice.

Petitioner has obtained an other for respondent to show cause 'why an Order should not be made herein, pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, prohibiting the Hon. Charles G. Rose, Justice of the Peace of the Town of Victor, Ontario County, New York, from continuing to assume jurisdiction in the proceeding pending before said Court arising out of an alleged violation of Section 1180, Subdivision B-2 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and further why said Respondent should not be prohibited and restrained from taking any further steps in connection with the said proceeding and why the petitioner should not have such other and further aid and relief as this Court may deem just and proper, * * *'; and it is further ordered therein 'that the Respondent be and hereby is stayed from proceeding in the matter referred to herein until after the hearing and determination of the petition herein brought by this Order to Show Cause and the entry of an Order therof and service thereof with notice of entry, * * *'. (Order to Show Cause.)

Respondent, upon the aforesaid show cause order and upon the papers upon which said show cause order was based, has moved 'for an order dismissing the petition herein as a matter of law upon the ground that it appears upon the face of said petition that the same is insufficient in law in that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute grounds for the relief sought therein.'

It appears that petitioner received a Uniform Traffic Ticket from the New York State Police; that he was arrested for and was charged with speeding in violation of Section 1180, Subdivision 2(b) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law; that said Uniform Traffic Ticket directed petitioner to appear before the Court of Special Sessions for the Town of Victor, New York to be held in said Town on the 10th day of November, 1962 at 7:00 o'clock P.M.; that on the 10th day of Movember, 1962 at 7:00 o'clock P.M. petitioner appeared at the Town Hall in the Town of Victor, New York; that the Court of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • People ex rel. Panek v. Radak
    • United States
    • New York Court of Special Sessions
    • 5 décembre 1966
    ...jurisdiction by a correction of the information. Matter of Bennett v. Mannix, 30 Misc.2d 613, 219 N.Y.S.2d 566; Matter of Abbott v. Rose, 40 Misc.2d 64, 242 N.Y.S.2d 773; People v. Scott, 3 N.Y.2d 148, 164 N.Y.S.2d 707, 143 N.E.2d 901. Great care must therefore be taken in examining the inf......
  • People v. Sterritt, 19060233
    • United States
    • New York County Court
    • 21 février 2020
    ...783 (3d Dept. 2011).4 People v. Fatsis, 180 Misc 2d 172, 173 (1999).5 Shapiro v. MacAffer, 99 Misc 2d 694, 695 (1979) and Abbott v. Rose, 40 Misc 2d 64, 67 (1963).6 NYS VTL § 1806.7 NYS VTL § 1806.8 Practice Commentary, Carrieri, 2009 Practice Commentaries McKinney's Cons. Laws of NY, Book ......
  • Lait v. Leon
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 25 juillet 1963
    ...The promisee probably had a duty to take some action to insure that the promisor would live up to his duty. Normally, a stockholder [40 Misc.2d 64] can do this by exercising his right to vote. In this case, however, the stock was of a non-voting class. Any action the stockholders were to ta......
  • People ex rel. Moochler v. D'Agostino
    • United States
    • New York Court of Special Sessions
    • 2 décembre 1966
    ...and is a proper subject for a motion to dismiss. Matter of Bennett v. Mannix, 30 Misc.2d 613, 219 N.Y.S.2d 566; Matter of Abbott v. Rose, 40 Misc.2d 64, 242 N.Y.S.2d A Court of Special Sessions comes into existence for each particular case, and if it is not in session on the return date of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • People ex rel. Panek v. Radak
    • United States
    • New York Court of Special Sessions
    • 5 décembre 1966
    ...jurisdiction by a correction of the information. Matter of Bennett v. Mannix, 30 Misc.2d 613, 219 N.Y.S.2d 566; Matter of Abbott v. Rose, 40 Misc.2d 64, 242 N.Y.S.2d 773; People v. Scott, 3 N.Y.2d 148, 164 N.Y.S.2d 707, 143 N.E.2d 901. Great care must therefore be taken in examining the inf......
  • People v. Sterritt, 19060233
    • United States
    • New York County Court
    • 21 février 2020
    ...783 (3d Dept. 2011).4 People v. Fatsis, 180 Misc 2d 172, 173 (1999).5 Shapiro v. MacAffer, 99 Misc 2d 694, 695 (1979) and Abbott v. Rose, 40 Misc 2d 64, 67 (1963).6 NYS VTL § 1806.7 NYS VTL § 1806.8 Practice Commentary, Carrieri, 2009 Practice Commentaries McKinney's Cons. Laws of NY, Book ......
  • Lait v. Leon
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 25 juillet 1963
    ...The promisee probably had a duty to take some action to insure that the promisor would live up to his duty. Normally, a stockholder [40 Misc.2d 64] can do this by exercising his right to vote. In this case, however, the stock was of a non-voting class. Any action the stockholders were to ta......
  • People ex rel. Moochler v. D'Agostino
    • United States
    • New York Court of Special Sessions
    • 2 décembre 1966
    ...and is a proper subject for a motion to dismiss. Matter of Bennett v. Mannix, 30 Misc.2d 613, 219 N.Y.S.2d 566; Matter of Abbott v. Rose, 40 Misc.2d 64, 242 N.Y.S.2d A Court of Special Sessions comes into existence for each particular case, and if it is not in session on the return date of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT