People v. Bliss
| Decision Date | 10 May 1971 |
| Citation | 66 Misc.2d 398,321 N.Y.S.2d 182 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York v. John J. BLISS, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
William Cahn, Dist. Atty., Nassau County, Mineola, for the people.
Michael Blum, Westbury, for defendant.
This is a motion to vacate and set aside a forfeiture of bail ordered by the Honorable Albert A. Oppido, formerly a judge of this court, on January 6, 1970, because of defendant's failure to appear on January 5, 1970, and for an Order directing the County Treasurer of Nassau County to pay the sum of.$1000.00 to Michael Blum, Esq., attorney for the defendant, and assignee of the cash bail deposited by Brian Hall, the surety, in lieu of bail on behalf of the defendant.
Shortly after the defendant was arrested on October 3, 1969, on a charge of Possession of a Stolen Credit Card in violation of Section 165.45, sub. 2 of the revised Penal Law, his bail was fixed in the sum of.$1000.00.
On October 8, 1969, one Brian Hall, deposited such amount as cash bail with the Sheriff of Nassau County, as evidenced by the Sheriff's receipt attached to the motion papers.
In this moving affidavit the defendant's attorney states that in order to insure the payment of his legal fee, the defendant, who, claiming to be without other means, offered to assign all of his rights in the said cash bail deposited by Brian Hall, to his said attorney. In furtherance of this understanding, and as a part of this transaction, the defendant, as well as the said Brian Hall, executed their respective assignments of said cash bail to the attorney.
When this case was set down by the court for a conference on February 5, 1970, although counsel appeared in court, the defendant failed to make an appearance. The conference was thereby frustrated and the matter marked for the trial calendar.
Because of this default by the defendant, a warrant was issued on February 6, 1970, for his apprehension, and the bail was forfeited.
Counsel now contends that, 'I have not from the date of that conference until some time in October 1970, when this defendant was arrested and charged with other crimes, ever been notified or informed by this court, or by the district attorney's office, that this case would appear on any calendar of this court'.
The forfeiture of bail is based on the defendant's conceded default in appearing in court on February 5, 1970. Counsel's argument that he received no notice of the issuance of the warrant, nor of the bail forfeiture on the next day, provides neither a legal basis nor an excuse for a remission of bail.
Notice is not required to forfeit bail. Under Section 593 Code Cr.Proc., it is provided that when a defendant fails to appear in court at a time when he is required so to do, his bail becomes forfeited when the fact of his default is entered upon the minutes of the court. People v. Bennett, 136 N.Y. 482, 32 N.E. 1044, reargument denied 137 N.Y. 601, 33 N.E. 373.
As an additional basis for relief, counsel contended on the argument hereof that the defendant was incarcerated in a Pennsylvania jail from January 31, 1970 to April 1970. It would thus appear from counsel's statement that the defendant was not in a state of incarceration from April 1970 until October 1970, during which he made absolutely no effort to communicate with his lawyer, or to surrender to the court. The defendant was, in fact, produced before this court by virtue of the enforcement of a warrant.
Whatever excuse for the defendant's default on February 5, 1970, which may have existed because of his confinement in a Pennsylvania jail, at that time, is completely dissipated and overcome by the salient fact that (1) when he was released in April 1970, he made no effort whatever to communicate with his counsel nor with the court, and (2) he was not surrendered before the execution of the warrant. People v. Hernandez, 15 A.D.2d 798, 224 N.Y.S.2d 703, and People v. Peerless Ins. Co., 21 A.D.2d 609 at 618, 253 N.Y.S.2d 91 at 103.
There is a complete failure here to show such hardship as would warrant a remission of the bail within the standards set forth in People v. Peerless Ins. Co. (supra) and People v. Fiannaca, 306 N.Y. 513 at page 517, 119 N.E.2d 363 at page 365.
Any monetary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Castro
...of taking after forfeiture to the depositor of cash bail (see People v. Brown, 96 Misc.2d 127, 129, 408 N.Y.S.2d 927; People v. Bliss, 66 Misc.2d 398, 400, 321 N.Y.S.2d 182). One possible answer to the due process claim is that for the purposes of the deposit, the money is deemed the defend......
-
People v. Midland Ins. Co.
...1044, 1047 (1893); People v. Brown, 408 N.Y.S.2d 927 (Sup.Ct. Queens Co. 1978) (N.Y.L.J., 9/21/78, pp. 12-13); People v. Bliss, 66 Misc.2d 398, 400, 321 N.Y.S.2d 182, 183 (Sup.Ct. Nassau Co. 1971); People v. Continental Casualty Co., 200 Misc. 546, 547-549, 105 N.Y.S.2d 566, 567 (Sup.Ct. N.......
-
People v. Brown
...stay did not enlarge the time within which the application for remission must be made. A more recent case is People v. Bliss (66 Misc.2d 398, 321 N.Y.S.2d 182 (1971)), in which a defendant argued that he had not received any notice of bail forfeiture. The court ruled (p. 400, 321 N.Y.S.2d p......
-
People v. Seneca Ins. Co.
...of forfeiture or notice of taking after forfeiture to the depositor of cash bail (see People v Brown, 96 Misc 2d 127, 129; People v Bliss, 66 Misc 2d 398, 400) * * "There are, however, more fundamental reasons why the failure of notice is not a violation of due process. It has long been hel......