From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Goldsmith

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 20, 1928
164 N.E. 593 (N.Y. 1928)

Summary

In People v. Goldsmith (249 N.Y. 586) the application was made in the first instance to the Appellate Division as a court.

Summary of this case from People v. McCarthy

Opinion

Argued October 22, 1928

Decided November 20, 1928

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Horace G. Marks for appellant.

Robert H. Elder, William Dike Reed and Otho S. Bowling, amici curiae. Joab H. Banton, District Attorney ( Felix C. Benvenga and Michael J. Driscoll of counsel), for respondent.


Judgment of the Appellate Division and that of Special Sessions reversed and information dismissed upon the ground that there is no evidence that defendant held himself out to the public as being entitled to practice law within the meaning of section 270 of the Penal Law. (See People v. Alfani, 227 N.Y. 334.)

Concur: CARDOZO, Ch. J., POUND, CRANE, ANDREWS, LEHMAN and KELLOGG, JJ. Not sitting: O'BRIEN, J.


Summaries of

People v. Goldsmith

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 20, 1928
164 N.E. 593 (N.Y. 1928)

In People v. Goldsmith (249 N.Y. 586) the application was made in the first instance to the Appellate Division as a court.

Summary of this case from People v. McCarthy
Case details for

People v. Goldsmith

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. H. ELY GOLDSMITH…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 20, 1928

Citations

164 N.E. 593 (N.Y. 1928)
164 N.E. 593

Citing Cases

Spivak v. Sachs

It is settled that the practice of law forbidden in this State by section 270 of the Penal Law to all but…

People v. Weil

There was no evidence whatever that he ever held himself out to the public as being entitled to practice law.…