People v. Maldonado
| Decision Date | 11 March 1966 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Rafael MALDONADO, Defendant. Peerless Insurance Company as Surety. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
John Nicholas Iannuzzi, New York City, for defendant.
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty., New York City, for the People.
This is a motion to vacate a judgment based on an alleged bail bond forfeiture. The surety movant contends that at the time of the alleged forfeiture on May 21, 1965, it was no longer on the bond as a matter of law, and it is not moving for remission of forfeiture pursuant to Sections 597 and 598 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The facts are not in dispute and they are:
The defendant was indicted on January 15, 1965. He was released in bail of $10,000, furnished by the movant on January 29, 1965. He failed to appear on April 1, 1965; a bench warrant was issued and the bail declared forfeited, but the execution of the forfeiture was stayed until April 2, 1965, at 10:00 A.M. The defendant appeared that following day, April 2; the forfeiture was vacated and the defendant was remanded and taken into custody of the Correction Department. About thirty minutes later the court reconsidered its action, and on motion of defendant's attorney and the consent of the Assistant District Attorney 'restored' the defendant to bail. The defendant failing to appear on May 21, 1965, bail was ordered forfeited and the judgment under attack herein was entered on June 14, 1965.
The People argue that the surety was not relieved of liability when the court revoked the bail and remanded the principal, particularly since the reinstatement of bail without the consent of the surety occurred within thirty minutes.
Neither side points to a precedent in this State, but the movant cites an old California decision similar in fact to the case at bar and persuasive in reasoning--People v. McReynolds, 102 Cal. 308, 311--312, 36 P. 590, wherein the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Castro
...of Limitations applies equally when the forfeiture of bail is claimed to be void, or illegal (see, for example, People v. Maldonado, 49 Misc.2d 641, 268 N.Y.S.2d 271, affd. 31 A.D.2d 717, 295 N.Y.S.2d A claim of illegality of the forfeiture procedure is properly made in a motion to vacate t......
-
Com. v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co.
...surety is discharged and the bail bond is considered void. People v. McReynolds, 102 Cal. 308, 36 P. 590 (1894). People v. Maldonado, 49 Misc.2d 641, 268 N.Y.S.2d 271 (1966), affd. 31 A.D.2d 717, 295 N.Y.S.2d 597 (1968). Restatement: Security, § 206(2) (1941). See National Surety Co. v. Uni......
-
People v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co.
...forfeiture of a void bond (see People v. Wirtschafter, 305 N.Y. 515, 519, 114 N.E.2d 18, 20 (1953); People v. Maldonado, 49 Misc.2d 641, 642, 268 N.Y.S.2d 271, 272 (Sup.Ct.N.Y.Co.1966)). The People contend that notwithstanding the express limitation contained in the bond, (1) the surety mus......
-
People v. Henry
...776, 223 N.Y.S. 466, affd. 247 N.Y. 572, 161 N.E. 187; People v. Bowles, 280 App.Div. 476, 482, 114 N.Y.S.2d 353; People v. Maldonado, 49 Misc.2d 641, 268 N.Y.S.2d 271, affd. 31 A.D.2d 717, 295 N.Y.S.2d 597; People v. Public Serv. Mutual Insurance Co., 49 Misc.2d 875, 268 N.Y.S.2d 624; Mill......