People v. Patrick
| Decision Date | 27 October 1905 |
| Citation | 75 N.E. 963,183 N.Y. 52 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. PATRICK. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Motion for reargument. Denied.
For former opinion, see 182 N. Y. 131, 74 N. E. 843.
Though I am one of the minority who dissented from the affirmance of the judgment of conviction in this case, I am entirely clear that the present motion for reargument should be denied. The grounds for such an application are stated by Judge Peckham in Fosdick v. Town of Hempstead, 126 N. Y. 651, 27 N. E. 382: ‘A motion for reargument must be founded on papers showing that some question decisive of the case and duly submitted by counsel has been overlooked by the court, or that the decision is in confiict with the statute or a controlling decision.’ The learned judge further observed: ‘While it is very possible we err in many cases, yet the rule adopted is a proper one, considering that there must be at some point an end of litigation.’ While in a capital case we would not hold an appellant to the rule that the point overlooked must have been raised by counsel on the argument, it is just as true of such a case as of a civil case ‘that there must at some point be an end of litigation.’ That point was reached in this case when, after a hearing accorded counsel far more extended in time than any that has been had before this court for years, after a consideration of the case for some months, and after frequent discussions at the consultation table, the court announced its decision. The matter should not now be reopened, unless some important objection has been overlooked by us. We have examined with care the elaborate brief filed by the appellant's counsel, and find no objection discussed therein that was not considered by the court before it decided the appeal. In the opinions that were then written all of the questions raised that were deemed important were considered and discussed, and the opinions clearly expressed the views of the several members of the court thereon. It is true that in the prevailing opinion some of the exceptions raised upon the trial of the case were not specifically alluded to or separately discussed; but they all appear in the dissenting opinions, and were, therefore, necessarily passed upon by the court before it announced its determination. There is, therefore, no valid reason for granting this motion.
It is urged, however, as a ground for the application, that Judge GRAY, who wrote the prevailing opinion, is the father of a subordinate counsel in the office of the district attorney of New York, Mr. Henry G. Gray, who appeared with Mr. Garvin, another deputy assistant, in opposition to the motion made by the defendant for a new trial on newly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lewis
... ... Where the disqualification is not based on Judiciary Law § 14 the Judge/Justice is the sole arbiter of recusal (People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 405, 521 N.Y.S.2d 663, 516 N.E.2d 200; People v. Patrick, 183 N.Y. 52, 54, 75 N.E. 963; People v. Bonnerwith, 69 Misc.2d 516, 520, 330 N.Y.S.2d 248). The failure to disqualify oneself for reasons other than Judiciary Law § 14 does not ordinarily result in an automatic reversal (People v. Willsey, 148 A.D.2d 764, 765-766, 538 N.Y.S.2d 342; Katz v ... ...
-
People v. Bartolomeo
...recuse himself to avoid an appearance of impropriety is a matter left to the personal conscience of the court (see, People v. Patrick, 183 N.Y. 52, 54, 75 N.E. 963; Poli v. Gara, 117 A.D.2d 786, 789, 499 N.Y.S.2d 112; Casterella v. Casterella, 65 A.D.2d 614, 615, 409 N.Y.S.2d 548). "In the ......
-
Harvey v. Hynes
...motion for reargument is granted (see, Loland v. City of New York, 212 A.D.2d 674, 622 N.Y.S.2d 762; see also, People v. Patrick, 183 N.Y. 52, 53, 75 N.E. 963). The court vacates its prior decision only as it relates to the Grand Jury testimony. This decision is substituted for that Freedom......
-
People v. Moreno
...362, 275 N.Y.S.2d 377, 221 N.E.2d 909; see also, People v. Smith, 63 N.Y.2d 41, 68, 479 N.Y.S.2d 706, 468 N.E.2d 879; People v. Patrick, 183 N.Y. 52, 54, 75 N.E. 963). When the alleged impropriety arises from information derived during the performance of the court's adjudicatory function, t......