People v. Mappa
| Decision Date | 03 February 1959 |
| Citation | 7 A.D.2d 222,182 N.Y.S.2d 27 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of State of New York, Respondent, v. Baruch MAPPA, Defendant-Appellant, and Joseph Bodak, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
M. Arthur Hammer, New York City, of counsel (Martin Gallin, New York City, atty.), for appellant.
Robert L. Ellis, New York City, of counsel (Seymour B. Quel, New York City, with him on the brief; Charles H. Tenney, Corp. Counsel, New York City, atty.), for respondent.
Before BOTEIN, P. J., and BREITEL, RABIN, M. M. FRANK and VALENTE, JJ.
This appeal is from four separate judgments of conviction of violations of the Multiple Dwelling Law, § 1 et seq., entered on a plea of guilty before a City Magistrate sitting as a Court of Special Sessions.
It is the contention of defendant-appellant that on the arraignment he was never advised that he had the right to be tried by a bench of three Justices of the Court of Special Sessions (New York City Criminal Courts Act, § 131). The transcript of the minutes of the proceedings, which purports to be a full record of everything that took place, indicates, at least prima facie, that defendant-appellant was not so advised and is sufficient to meet the presumption of regularity attested to by the documentary record of the convictions (People v. Richetti, 302 N.Y. 290, 298, 97 N.E.2d 908, 912). If defendant was not advised of his rights, the subsequent proceedings herein were jurisdictionally defective and of no force and effect (People v. Genova, 273 App.Div. 496, 78 N.Y.S.2d 97).
Defendant failed to raise this jurisdictional objection in the court below by means of an appropriate motion or proceeding addressed to this issue. It has been raised for the first time on this appeal, so that the People have never had an opportunity to come forward to refute defendant's charges and offer evidence sustaining the pro forma documentary recitation that defendant had been advised of his rights. Ordinarily, we would not disturb the judgment itself without first affording the People such an opportunity. A hearing on the issue as to whether defendant was properly advised of his rights is indicated, either on remand upon this appeal or upon subsequent independent application. Since the matter must be remanded in any event, in view of the general climate and circumstances surrounding the arraignment and sentencing, we believe that in the interests of justice the judgments of conviction should be set...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Schulman
...Failure to give the advice deprives the Magistrate of jurisdiction (People v. Genova, 273 App.Div. 496, 78 N.Y.S.2d 97; People v. Mappa, 7 A.D.2d 222, 182 N.Y.S.2d 27). Doubtless, the giving of the advice may be waived as well as any other safeguard. The question here is whether it was, and......
-
People on Complaint of Stein v. Mallay
...of such failure to advise is to deprive the court of jurisdiction and render the proceedings of no force and effect (People v. Mappa, 7 A.D.2d 222, 182 N.Y.S.2d 27; People v. Schulman, 13 A.D.2d 441, 216 N.Y.S.2d 998; People v. Genova, 273 App.Div. 496, 78 N.Y.S.2d 97). As it would be futil......
- Brodnax Mills, Inc. v. Neisler Mills Division of Mass. Mohair Plush Co.
-
People v. Simpson
...structure of the present Criminal Court. (See, i.e., People v. Genova, 273 App.Div. 496, 78 N.Y.S.2d 97 (1948), and People v. Mappa, 7 A.D.2d 222, 182 N.Y.S.2d 27 (1959) which followed it.) Even under the former court structure, however, an inquiry by the Magistrate whether defendant submit......