Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

216 N.Y. 762

111 N.E 1095

People v. . Schmidt

New York Court of Appeals

Decided January 7, 1916

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1916-01-07

<p>Ex parte motion for re-argument. (See 216 N. Y. 324.)</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1916-01-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently August 1997

4 state decisions

20191619201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 This motion is irregular since such an application requires notice to the district attorney and we have no evidence that the prescribed notice has been given. (Rule XX of Rules of the Court of Appeals.) Notwithstanding this irregularity, in view of the fact that the execution of the judgment is fixed for the week beginning next' Monday, we have looked carefully into the merits and find nothing which would justify us in granting a re-argument. In affirming the judgment this court held that the defendant was not harmed by an error relating to a defense which he alleged and admitted under oath to be fraudulent and a sham. His counsel now insists that by so holding we deprived him of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. We can perceive no basis for this assertion. The request of counsel for a certificate that a Federal question was involved in the appeal cannot be complied with for it is not the fact. The motion for a re-argument must be denied.

¶2 All concur.

¶3 Motion denied.

/216/ny/762 · .json · Public domain