Bennett v. Mannix

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New York)
Writing for the CourtCHARLES LAMBIASE
Citation219 N.Y.S.2d 566,30 Misc.2d 613
Decision Date07 August 1961
PartiesApplication of Gordon Elmer BENNETT, Petitioner, for an Order under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, v. Robert MANNIX, Police Justice of the Village of Ovid, Seneca County, New York, Respondent.

Page 566

219 N.Y.S.2d 566
30 Misc.2d 613
Application of Gordon Elmer BENNETT, Petitioner, for an
Order under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act,
v.
Robert MANNIX, Police Justice of the Village of Ovid, Seneca
County, New York, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Seneca County.
Aug. 7, 1961.

William A. Dicker, Ithaca, for petitioner.

Bradford F. Miller, Dist. Atty. of Seneca County, Seneca Falls, for respondent.

CHARLES LAMBIASE, Justice.

This is an application by petitioner above named for respondent to show cause why an order should not be made pursuant to the provisions of Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act prohibiting said Police Justice from further proceedings against petitioner, Gordon Elmer Bennett. By the same show cause order respondent has been stayed from further proceedings against petitioner pending a hearing on this motion and a decision thereon. The matter has been submitted without oral argument.

Petitioner on June 4, 1961 received a traffic ticket charging him with a violation of section 511 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York and requiring him to appear before respondent, a Police Justice, in the Village of Ovid, New York, on June 8, 1961 at 7:00 p. m. On that date and at that hour petitioner and his counsel, having travelled sixty miles to get to the appointed place where the traffic ticket advised

Page 567

them that the court was going to be held, found affixed to the door a notice that 'All cases scheduled for June 8, 1961, are adjourned until June [30 Misc.2d 614] 9, 1961.' Petitioner and his attorney waited for a considerable period of time and while awaiting were informed that respondent had gone to Canada.

Thereafter and on June 9, 1961 petitioner's attorney spoke to respondent by telephone, and the latter informed him that he had been in Canada, and further that the arresting police officer had filed an information against petitioner prior to June 8, 1961. Respondent was advised that a special appearance would be entered on behalf of the petitioner to object to the court's jurisdiction.

On June 15, 1961 petitioner again appeared with his attorney and a written notice of petitioner's special appearance was filed with the Police Justice. Objection to the continuance of the prosecution of said alleged violation on the ground that said Justice, by failing to be present in court on the return day set, viz., June 8, 1961, was divested of jurisdiction to continue with the case was made by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • People ex rel. Panek v. Radak
    • United States
    • New York Court of Special Sessions
    • 5 Diciembre 1966
    ...reason of a defective information, it cannot re-gain that 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 90......
  • Abbott v. Rose
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 1 Abril 1963
    ...failure to complete Page 776 the court, and the court no longer had jurisdiction to proceed. Johnson v. Zerbst, supra; Bennett v. Mannix, 30 Misc.2d 613, 219 N.Y.S.2d 566, and cases cited [40 Misc.2d 67] We conclude, therefore, that petitioner is entitled to an order prohibiting the respond......
  • People ex rel. Moochler v. D'Agostino
    • United States
    • New York Court of Special Sessions
    • 2 Diciembre 1966
    ...the return date of the ticket. This basis is well founded, 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 particul......
  • People v. Fatsis
    • United States
    • New York Justice Court
    • 12 Enero 1999
    ...The ticket was returnable on a Sunday evening. Defendant cites Abbott v. Rose, 40 Misc.2d 64, 242 N.Y.S.2d 773 and Bennett v. Mannix, 30 Misc.2d 613, 219 N.Y.S.2d 566 as her authority for the The Abbott case was decided in 1963 in a mandamus proceeding in Supreme Court filed to prevent a Ju......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • People ex rel. Panek v. Radak
    • United States
    • New York Court of Special Sessions
    • 5 Diciembre 1966
    ...reason of a defective information, it cannot re-gain that 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 90......
  • Abbott v. Rose
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 1 Abril 1963
    ...failure to complete Page 776 the court, and the court no longer had jurisdiction to proceed. Johnson v. Zerbst, supra; Bennett v. Mannix, 30 Misc.2d 613, 219 N.Y.S.2d 566, and cases cited [40 Misc.2d 67] We conclude, therefore, that petitioner is entitled to an order prohibiting the respond......
  • People ex rel. Moochler v. D'Agostino
    • United States
    • New York Court of Special Sessions
    • 2 Diciembre 1966
    ...the return date of the ticket. This basis is well founded, 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 particul......
  • People v. Fatsis
    • United States
    • New York Justice Court
    • 12 Enero 1999
    ...The ticket was returnable on a Sunday evening. Defendant cites Abbott v. Rose, 40 Misc.2d 64, 242 N.Y.S.2d 773 and Bennett v. Mannix, 30 Misc.2d 613, 219 N.Y.S.2d 566 as her authority for the The Abbott case was decided in 1963 in a mandamus proceeding in Supreme Court filed to prevent a Ju......
  • 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