People v. Stromberg
| Decision Date | 09 June 1966 |
| Citation | 271 N.Y.S.2d 992,17 N.Y.2d 892 |
| Parties | , 218 N.E.2d 700 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Peter STROMBERG, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Broome County Court.
David B. Alford, Middleburgh, for defendant-appellant.
Stephen Smyk, Binghamton (Herbert A. Kline, Binghamton, of counsel), for respondent.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. , amicus curiae for the People.
The defendant was arrested in the Town of Chenango, New York, on March 24, 1965 and was charged with speeding in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law, Consol.Laws, c. 71, § 1180, subd. (b), par. 2. The arresting officer issued him a uniform traffic ticket that was made returnable before Chenango justice of the peace Donald E. Matchett, on March 30, 1965. The defendant appeared with counsel ready for trial at the time and place the ticket was returnable and entered a plea of not guilty. No one appeared to prosecute. The defendant moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The magistrate denied the motion and adjourned the matter over defendant's objection to 9 a.m., April 8, 1965, for trial. The defendant took exception, posted $25 bail, and appeared for trial as required. At the opening of the trial the defendant renewed his motion on the record to dismiss for failure to prosecute.
On appeal from the conviction the magistrate stated in his return that the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute was denied at arraignment because (1) no stenographer was available and (2) eight other arraignments were scheduled that evening.
The County Court, Greenblott, J., affirmed the conviction and held that the denial of the motion to dismiss was a proper exercise of discretion.
The defendant appealed by permission of an associate judge of the Court of Appeals. In the Court of Appeals the appellant argued that the magistrate's denial of the defendant's motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion.
Judgment affirmed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flahavan v. Allen
...A denial of the motion might have been within the bounds of a proper exercise of his discretion. (See, People v. Stromberg, 17 N.Y.2d 892, 271 N.Y.S.2d 992, 218 N.E.2d 700.) Granting the motion may be considered a proper exercise of respondent's discretion. (See, People v. Wooster, 17 N.Y.2......
- Pease & Elliman, Inc. v. 926 Park Ave. Corp.
-
People v. Miller
...893, 271 N.Y.S.2d 993, 218 N.E.2d 701. Denial of such a motion is also a proper exercise of discretion, see People v. Stromberg, 17 N.Y.2d 892, 271 N.Y.S.2d 992, 218 N.E.2d 700. Section 673 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as ' § 673. Dismissal, a bar, in misdemeanor; but not in felo......