People v. Berry
| Decision Date | 13 May 1965 |
| Citation | 23 A.D.2d 955,259 N.Y.S.2d 971 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of The State of New York, Respondent, v. George A. BERRY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert S. Amdursky, Oswego, for appellant.
John R. Murray, Oswego, for respondent.
Before WILLIAMS, P. J., and BASTOW, GOLDMAN, HENRY, and NOONAN, JJ.
Appellant was denied coram nobis relief following a hearing. Under attack in the proceeding was a judgment of conviction of June 9, 1961. The Acting County Judge who presided at the hearing was in 1961 an Assistant District Attorney of the county of venue. This fact disqualified the judge (cf. People v. Wright, 16 A.D.2d 743, 227 N.Y.S.2d 217). The facts herein make People ex rel. Stickle v. Fay, 14 N.Y.2d 683, 249 N.Y.S.2d 879, 198 N.E.2d 909, distinguishable. There the sentencing judge had prosecuted relator for two prior felonies and the resulting convictions had been recited in a multiple felony information that was the basis for the sentence imposed. But here the application centered upon the validity of the judgment entered while the hearing judge was a prosecutor. '[A] substantial right of the defendant was involved which might have required the exercise of some discretion on the part of the court' (People v. Bennett, 19 A.D.2d 929, 930, 244 N.Y.S.2d 547, 549). It appears that the judge placed these facts on the record and the defendant stated he had no objection. But once it is found that a judge comes within the provisions of section 14 of the Judiciary Law jurisdiction to act may not be conferred by consent of the parties. (People v. Whitridge, 144 App.Div. 493, 129 N.Y.S. 300). We emphasize that the judge acted in good faith and without prejudice or bias. His extreme caution and candor are commendable. (Appeal from Order of Oswego County Court, Donovan, J., denying, following a hearing, motion to vacate a judgment of conviction for Attempted Grand Larceny, 2nd degree, rendered February 26, 1953.)
Order unanimously reversed and matter remitted to Oswego County Court for a new hearing.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lewis
...under Judiciary Law § 14 lacks jurisdiction to decide the issue (People v. Connor, 142 N.Y. 130, 133, 36 N.E. 807; People v. Berry, 23 A.D.2d 955, 259 N.Y.S.2d 971; People v. Frey, 277 App.Div. 1156, 100 N.Y.S.2d 865; People v. Haas, 105 App.Div. 119, 122, 93 N.Y.S. 790; see also, Oakley v.......
-
People v. Tartaglia
...of This matter (cf. People v. Scott, Supra; People v. Clement, 26 A.D.2d 968, 274 N.Y.S.2d 740 (3d Dept. 1966); People v. Berry, 23 A.D.2d 955, 259 N.Y.S.2d 971 (4th Dept. 1965); People v. Wright, 16 A.D.2d 743, 227 N.Y.S.2d 217 (4th Dept. 1962); People v. Haas, 105 App.Div. 119, 93 N.Y.S. ......
-
Harkness Apartment Owners Corp. v. Abdus-Salaam
...a judge comes within the operation of the statute, jurisdiction may not be conferred by the consent of the parties (People v. Berry, 23 A.D.2d 955, 259 N.Y.S.2d 971). In discussing the concern for fairness and integrity in judicial proceedings, the Court of Appeals emphasized that "a judge ......
-
People v. Rainey
...851, 251 N.Y.S.2d 966, 200 N.E.2d 632; People ex rel. Stickle v. Fay, 14 N.Y.2d 683, 249 N.Y.S.2d 879, 198 N.E.2d 909). People v. Berry, 23 A.D.2d 955, 259 N.Y.S.2d 971 is distinguished, because in the case at bar what is being attacked is not the sentence of conviction in the County Court,......