From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Wuckich

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 31, 1963
13 N.Y.2d 953 (N.Y. 1963)

Summary

In People v. Wuckich (13 N.Y.2d 953), the court determined that the claim of defendant of undue delay between the filing of the indictment and his arraignment did not constitute good cause.

Summary of this case from People v. Chambers

Opinion

Argued September 30, 1963

Decided October 31, 1963

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, LEO W. BREED, J.

John M. Freyer for appellant.

Joseph A. Ryan, District Attorney ( Michael R. Canestrano of counsel), for respondent.


Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Judges DYE, FULD, VAN VOORHIS and SCILEPPI. Chief Judge DESMOND and Judges BURKE and FOSTER dissent and vote to withhold determination of appeal and to remit the case to the Onondaga County Court for a hearing to determine (1) the question of fact as to when the District Attorney first learned that defendant had returned to New York from Florida, and (2) whether there was sufficient cause for the delay in bringing defendant to trial in Onondaga County Court after the District Attorney learned of defendant's return to New York.


Summaries of

People v. Wuckich

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 31, 1963
13 N.Y.2d 953 (N.Y. 1963)

In People v. Wuckich (13 N.Y.2d 953), the court determined that the claim of defendant of undue delay between the filing of the indictment and his arraignment did not constitute good cause.

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

People v. Wuckich

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. STEVE WUCKICH…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 31, 1963

Citations

13 N.Y.2d 953 (N.Y. 1963)
244 N.Y.S.2d 320
194 N.E.2d 135

Citing Cases

People v. Wuckich

Decided November 27, 1963 Appeal from ( 13 N.Y.2d 953) MOTIONS TO AMEND…

People v. Chambers

In People ex rel. Lupo v. Fay ( 13 N.Y.2d 253), the defendant was absent from the courtroom while arguments…