From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pitsley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 28, 1971
37 A.D.2d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Opinion

October 28, 1971

Appeal from the Oswego County Court.

Present — Goldman, P.J., Witmer, Gabrielli, Moule and Cardamone, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In affirming we are constrained to comment again on the failure of a District Attorney to submit a brief in support of the People's case. "It is the duty of every District Attorney to conduct all prosecutions for crimes or offenses cognizable by the courts of the county for which he shall have been elected (County Law, § 700, subd. 1). We feel that this requires that he file a brief stating his position concerning an appeal taken by a defendant" ( People v. Wright, 22 A.D.2d 754). "This responsibility and duty of the District Attorney is in no way diminished or excused by reason of the fact that we have affirmed the conviction after a careful consideration of the record and the law" ( People v. Holcombe, 34 A.D.2d 728; see, also, People v. Cerio, 34 A.D.2d 1095, 1096; People v. Houston, 31 A.D.2d 777).


Summaries of

People v. Pitsley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 28, 1971
37 A.D.2d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)
Case details for

People v. Pitsley

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHARLES A. PITSLEY…

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

Date published: Oct 28, 1971

Citations

37 A.D.2d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971)

Citing Cases

People v. Tifft

We further note that the District Attorney of Jefferson County did not personally appear to oppose the…

People v. Pacella

The suppression motion was, therefore, properly denied. Again we are required to comment upon the failure of…