1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Misc.2d
  4. 73 Misc.2d
  5. 73 Misc.2d 420 (1973)
 

PEOPLE v. ZAGORSKY

73 Misc.2d 420 (1973)

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jonathan Zagorsky, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Rohner, Appellant. (Action No. 2.) The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. David Pitcher, Respondent. (Action No. 3.) The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Ronald Sinacore, Respondent. (Action No. 4.) The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Danny Travis, Respondent. (Action No. 5.) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. David Johnson, Appellant. (Action No. 6.) The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Walter Brady, Respondent. (Action No. 7.) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Carla Pratt, Appellant. (Action No. 8.)

County Court, Broome County.

March 16, 1973

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Donald A. Perl for appellant in Action No. 1. Gerard Rohde, Assistant District Attorney, for respondent in Action No. 1. Conway M. Couse for appellant in Action No. 2. Robert W. Coutant, Chief Assistant District Attorney, for respondent in Action No. 2. Brian R. Wright, Assistant District Attorney, for appellant in Action No. 3. Walter Shulte for respondent in Action No. 3. Brian R. Wright, Assistant District Attorney, for appellant in Action No. 4. Richard S. Ringwood for respondent in Action No. 4. Brian R. Wright, Assistant District Attorney, for appellant in Action No. 5. David J. Menke for respondent in Action No. 5. Remy R. Perot for appellant in Action No. 6. Jon S. Blechman, Assistant District Attorney, for respondent in Action No. 6. Brian R. Wright, Assistant District Attorney, for appellant in Action No. 7. Remy R. Perot for respondent in Action No. 7. William J. Scanlon for appellant in Action No. 8. Robert W. Coutant, Chief Assistant District Attorney, for respondent in Action No. 8.

STEPHEN SMYK, J.

These appeals present two questions of first impression, one or the other of which is present in each of the cases decided herewith. Because of the number of cases which contain either or both of these issues, and the lack of uniformity of the local criminal courts in handling these two matters, we take occasion to write at some length on both points and resolve the following cases in the manner...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases