People v. Dercole
| Decision Date | 12 February 1981 |
| Citation | 52 N.Y.2d 956,419 N.E.2d 869,437 N.Y.S.2d 966 |
| Parties | , 419 N.E.2d 869 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Dominick DERCOLE, William Lungarelli and Julius Cianciola, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The appeal should be dismissed.
The Appellate Division's determination, 72 A.D.2d 318, 424 N.Y.S.2d 459, to reverse did not satisfy the jurisdictional predicate that it be made on the law alone or on the law and such facts which, except for the determination of law, would not have led to the reversal (CPL 450.90, subd. 2). Although the order states that the reversal is on the law, the opinion reveals that it was based on the asserted repugnancy of the trial court's verdicts, to which timely objection had not been taken.
As we made clear in People v. Johnson, 47 N.Y.2d 124, 417 N.Y.S.2d 46, 390 N.E.2d 764, a reversal by the Appellate Division based on claimed trial error to which objection is not taken presents no questions of law for appellate review in this court (see CPL 470.05, subd. 2). We also gave expression to this principle in People v. Cona, 49 N.Y.2d 26, 33-34, 424 N.Y.S.2d 146, 399 N.E.2d 1167 where, confronted with an Appellate Division conclusion as a matter of law that there had been preservation despite failure to object, we held, citing to Johnson (supra), that our review could proceed no further than reversal on that singular point of law and remittal to the Appellate Division to decide whether it was appropriate to treat the question within the exercise of its discretion.
In view of the dismissal thus mandated, this court, of course, has not reached the merits. It therefore goes without saying that our disposition does not reflect indorsement of the rulings contained in the opinion below (see Panico v. Young, 46 N.Y.2d 847, 414 N.Y.S.2d 313, 386 N.E.2d 1334).
Appeal dismissed in memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowe v. Superior Court, No. 17718.
...obvious that he would decline to acknowledge familiarity with their alleged criminal dealings"), appeal dismissed, 52 N.Y.2d 956, 419 N.E.2d 869, 437 N.Y.S.2d 966 (1981); see also Baker v. Eisenstadt, 456 F.2d 382, 393 (1st Cir.) ("[t]he petitioner having refused to say whether he had met [......
-
People v. Gallagher
...is of such dimension as to warrant reversal (People v. Dercole, 72 A.D.2d 318, 326, 424 N.Y.S.2d 459, appeal dismissed 52 N.Y.2d 956, 437 N.Y.S.2d 966, 419 N.E.2d 869). "[A]bsent a rational theory for their existence, apparently inconsistent verdicts will be held repugnant when the crimes u......
-
People v. Satloff
...of the crimes upon which there was conviction" (People v. Dercole, 72 A.D.2d 318, 333, 424 N.Y.S.2d 459, app.dsmd. 52 N.Y.2d 956, 437 N.Y.S.2d 966, 419 N.E.2d 869). The crimes charged in counts four and five cannot be labeled identical as two sales to two separate purchasers clearly mark th......
-
People v. Munck
...objection is not taken presents no question[ ] of law for appellate review” by the Court of Appeals ( People v. Dercole, 52 N.Y.2d 956, 957, 437 N.Y.S.2d 966, 419 N.E.2d 869 [1981]; see CPL 470.35[2][a]; 470.05[2] ). In other words, the legal standard presented here involves a body of law t......
-
23.60 - 3. Preservation: A Double-Edged Sword
...and III.J.5.[3560] . CPL § 470.35(1).[3561] . People v. Riback, 13 N.Y.3d 416, 420, 892 N.Y.S.2d 832 (2009).[3562] . People v. Dercole, 52 N.Y.2d 956, 437 N.Y.S.2d 966 (1981).[3563] . People v. Lavender, 68 N.Y.2d 995, 510 N.Y.S.2d 564 (1986).[3564] . People v. Baker, 64 N.Y.2d 1027, 489 N.......