Silver v. Sobel
| Decision Date | 01 December 1958 |
| Parties | Application of Edward S. SILVER, District Attorney of Kings County, for an order under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, Petitioner, v. Nathan R. SOBEL, individually and as County Judge of Kings County, the County Court of Kings County, and John Preston, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before WENZEL, Acting P. J., and BELDOCK, MURPHY, HALLINAN and KLEINFELD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Respondent Preston was indicted in the County Court of Kings County for the crime of manslaughter, first degree. Thereafter he moved in that court for permission to inspect, among other things, the portions of the report of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York containing his findings as to the autopsy. The motion was granted. Before the order was signed, the District Attorney moved at Special Term, Supreme Court, Kings County, for an order under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to prohibit the County Judge from signing an order permitting the inspection of that part of the report. The matter was referred by Special Term to this court.
Proceeding dismissed, without costs.
The County Court has power to grant a motion for inspection of documents in the possession of the prosecutor which are admissible on the trial as evidence for the prosecution. People ex rel. Lemon v. Supreme Court, 245 N.Y. 24, 29-30, 156 N.E. 84, 85, 52 A.L.R. 200. Since the findings contained in the autopsy report are admissible in evidence (People v. Nisonoff, 293 N.Y. 597, 59 N.E.2d 420; Civil Practice Act, § 374-a), the granting of the motion was within the discretion of the trial court. Such discretion may not be reviewed in this proceeding.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cook, A--51
...have taken a somewhat narrower approach. See People v. Preston, 13 Misc.2d 802, 176 N.Y.S.2d 542, aff'd sub nom, Silver v. Sobel, 7 App.Div.2d 728, 180 N.Y.S.2d 699 (1958); State ex rel. Helm v. Superior Court of Cochise County, supra, 90 Ariz. 133, 367 P.2d 6; cf. Layman v. State, 355 P.2d......
-
State v. Eads
...v. Superior Court, 106 N.H. 228, 208 A.2d 832, 833, 7 A.L.R.3d 1; Tate v. State, 219 Tenn. 698, 413 S.W.2d 366, 369; Silver v. Sobel, 7 App.Div.2d 728, 180 N.Y.S.2d 699, 700; State v. Foster, 242 Or. 101, 407 P.2d 901, 903. See also Annotation at 7 A.L.R.3d 145 for cases both allowing and r......
-
People v. Utley
...should not be denied solely to give the prosecution a tactical advantage or to lay the basis for 'trial by ambush' (Silver v. Sobel, 7 A.D.2d 728, 180 N.Y.S.2d 699; People v. Blair, 64 Misc.2d 519, 521, 315 N.Y.S.2d 179, 181). Simple justice requires that a defendant be made aware of what h......
-
People v. Bennett
...the trial and intermediate appellate courts of the State granted limited discovery in criminal cases on an Ad hoc basis. Silver v. Sobel, 7 A.D.2d 728, 180 N.Y.S.2d 699; People v. Rogas, 18 Misc. 567, 287 N.Y.S. 1005; People v. Preston, 13 Misc.2d 802, 176 N.Y.S.2d 542; Brennan, The Crimina......