People v. Halbreich
| Decision Date | 03 June 1959 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Arthur HALBREICH, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Special Sessions |
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., William S. Lebwohl, Counsel, Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, New York City (Meyer Scheps, New York City, of counsel), for appellant. Before GASSMAN, P. J., and RINGEL and ACQUAVELLA, JJ.
This is an appeal by the People (by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authortiy) from an order of a City Magistrate of the New York City Magistrates' Court, after trial, dismissing a complaint for a violation of a Traffic Regulation of the City of New York and discharging the defendant. The defendant appeared in person in answer to a traffic summons.
During the trial, counsel for the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority sought to prosecute the complaint, but was not permitted to do so by the learned Magistrate, who ruled that only the District Attorney could represent the People and prosecute. The learned Magistrate also would not permit proffered testimony to be given by the officer who allegedly had personal knowledge of the facts, on the ground that said officer did not issue the summons, or swear to the complaint on which the defendant was arraigned and tried. The said complaint had been sworn to by a Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority lieutenant, who as a peace officer was authorized to do so, while the officer who witnessed the alleged violation had no such power.
The People assert that these rulings by the Court below were error. The People claim that the prosecution of a traffic infraction may properly be conducted by a public official such as counsel for the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority.
Sec. 700 of the County Law states in part as follows:
'700. District Attorney; powers and duties
.
Sec. 927 of the County Law states in part as follows:
'It shall be the duty of the district attorney of the respective counties of New York, Bronx, Kings, Queens and Richmond to prosecute all crimes and offenses cognizable by the courts of the county for which he shall have been elected or apointed, * * *'.
From a reading of these sections of the County Law, it would seem that the only proper prosecuting authority for even a traffic offense, committed in one of the five counties of this city, would be the district attorney of the particular county. Error therefore can not be ascribed to the learned Magistrate below with respect to his ruling in regard to this item. Nevertheless this Court cannot close its eyes to a practice that has developed for decades in our Magistrates' Court in this city, where officials other than the district attorney have prosecuted all sorts of cases in both the Magistrates' Court and even in this court. Attorneys from the Legal Bureau of our Police Department have been prosecuting vagrants, the Corporation Counsel has been prosecuting violations of the Multiple Dwelling Law, the Sanitary Code and City Sales Tax Law, and the Attorney General has been prosecuting violations of the Workmen's Compensation Law and the Education Law. A similar practice has developed outside of the City of New York also. People on the Information of Bruckner v. Wyner, 207 Misc. 673, 142 N.Y.S.2d 393.
When this question was presented recently inter alia, to our Court of Appeals, that learned court affirmed the conviction without opinion. People v. Schildhaus, 4 N.Y.2d 883, 174 N.Y.S.2d 465. In view of the Court of Appeals action on this question, and since the result of this appeal is not dependent thereon, no further comment will be made. In any event appropriate legislative action would be much more advisable than an act of judicial legislation.
As to the second point raised by the People, the Court never obtained jurisdiction over the defendant. People v. Bertram, 302 N.Y. 526, 99 N.E.2d 873; People v. James, 4 N.Y.2d 482, 176 N.Y.S.2d 323.
The officer who signed the complaint had no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jackson
...465, 150 N.E.2d 768]; Matter of Turecamo Contr. Co., 260 App Div 253 , motion for leave to appeal denied 259 App Div 1094 ; People v. Halbreich, 18 Misc 2d 473 ; People v. Montgomery, 7 Misc 2d 294 ; Matter of Coleman v. Lee, 1 Misc 2d 685 .) And 'it is commonplace for the Magistrates to av......
-
People v. Vlasto
...Counsel). It is to be noted that in all these cases the 'prosecutor' was a 'public official.' (See also People v. Halbreich, 18 Misc.2d 473, 186 N.Y.S.2d 689 (1959).) Finally, in 1963 our highest court reviewed an order of the County Court of Orange County, which reversed a judgment of the ......
-
People on Complaint of Allen v. Citadel Management Co., Inc.
...County Ct., 1954), and People v. Schildhaus, 8 Misc.2d 8, 169 N.Y.S. 693 (City Magistrate's Ct. of N.Y., 1957). In People v. Halbreich, 18 Misc.2d 473, 186 N.Y.S.2d 689 (Ct. of Special Sessions of City of N.Y., Appellate Part, 1st Dept., 1959), the opinion of the court questioned the practi......
-
People v. Kassover
...is governed by the statute. People v. Gersewitz, 294 N.Y. 163, 168, 61 N.E.2d 427, 429. As we stated in People v. Halbreich, 18 Misc.2d 473, at page 475, 186 N.Y.S.2d 689, at page 691: 'The statutory provisions for appeal to the Appellate Part of this court are set forth in sections 40 and ......