People v. Kass

Decision Date01 October 1962
Citation36 Misc.2d 1,232 N.Y.S.2d 515
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Samuel KASS, Defendant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court

Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., for the People.

Samuel Kass, defendant, in pro. per.

THOMAS DICKENS, Justice.

A resettlement of my order, dated and entered on June 21, 1962, for the alleged purpose of laying the foundation of an appeal therefrom, is made the object of this formal motion.

For its support, the contention is raised that 'neither [my] opinion [now reported in 35 Misc.2d 449, 229 N.Y.S.2d 81], dated June 12, 1962, nor, the order of June 21, 1962, resolve a prime issue of fact vital to defendant's case,' in that 'The issue whether defendant was arraigned or was not * * * remains shrouded in ambiguity.' (Affidavit, p. [2].)

This contention is without merit, because (a), I left nothing to ambiguity in the opinion for I made my view very clear therein when I held not only that the question of the validity of the arraignment was unavailable in a coram nobis proceeding, but also that it (if ever existent) was, in any event, waived, as the result of the guilty plea; and because (b), there is no 'necessity for digesting in the recitals of the order that which the court decided. The ultimate conclusion ordinarily with sufficient language to describe the application is all that is necessary.' White v. White, 175 Misc. 66, 68 middle, 22 N.Y.S.2d 776, 778 top. See also Application of Ayman v. Teachers' Retirement Bd., 19 Misc.2d 355, 193 N.Y.S.2d 2.

As to the order itself with respect to the question of its proper composition for an appeal therefrom, it, together with the opinion, constitutes, in full, the kind of order that, in form and substance, meets the specifications detailed in Rules 70 and 72 of the Rules of Civil Practice; therefore, the order conformably lays the statutory groundwork, under Rule 234, par. 5 of the Rule of Civil Practice, for the contemplated appeal. See Lanaris v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company, sub nomine Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company v. Zavisca, 9 A.D.2d 1015, 194 N.Y.S.2d 718.

Lacking sustaining ground, the motion by defendant is denied.

The District Attorney is directed to enter an order in conformance with the decision herein and to forward a certified copy to defendant.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • People v. Kass
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 24, 1963
    ...pro se. Order, entered on June 21, 1962, unanimously affirmed. No opinion35 Misc.2d 449, 229 N.Y.S.2d 81, resettlement denied 36 Misc.2d 1, 232 N.Y.S.2d 515. ...
  • People v. Jordan
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 19, 1963
    ...defendant who pleads guilty or proceeds to trial. (People v. Kass, 35 Misc.2d 449, 450, 229 N.Y.S.2d 81, 83 [resettlement denied 36 Misc.2d 1, 232 N.Y.S.2d 515], affd. 18 A.D.2d 796, 236 N.Y.S.2d 1021.) As to the second ground of appellant's application, the acceptance of his plea of guilty......

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