From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Reilly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 28, 1958
5 A.D.2d 1035 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Opinion

April 28, 1958


Appeal from an order of County Court, Albany County, denying a motion for a writ of error coram nobis. In this coram nobis proceeding addressed to a judgment of conviction for assault, second degree, entered in the Albany County Court May 9, 1934, the defendant swore that he was not represented by counsel and had not been advised by the court of his right to counsel. These allegations are not refuted by the public record of the proceedings. In opposition to the application the District Attorney submitted an affidavit stating that his office records show that counsel had been assigned to the defendant and had acted for him. The originals of those records were submitted to the Judge on the application and examined by him. The court's ex parte examination of proof afforded no opportunity to the defendant to meet or controvert the proof and this is not cured by filing of photostatic copies on the appeal. Issues of this sort are not triable on appeal, which affords no opportunity to controvert or dispute facts, and the court is required to act on the adversary record made below. A triable issue is presented and a hearing should be had. Order reversed and the proceeding remitted to the County Court for a hearing. Bergan, J.P., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Reilly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 28, 1958
5 A.D.2d 1035 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)
Case details for

People v. Reilly

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. THOMAS P. REILLY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Apr 28, 1958

Citations

5 A.D.2d 1035 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958)

Citing Cases

People v. Morandi

The prior application was also denied without a hearing and "the records" which the court's present opinion…