From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Swartz

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 23, 1940
25 N.E.2d 386 (N.Y. 1940)

Summary

In People v. Swarts (282 N.Y. 596), a judgment convicting a defendant of violating section 982 of the Penal Law was affirmed where a machine had "allowed" winning players a free game.

Summary of this case from People v. Raziano

Opinion

Argued January 8, 1940

Decided January 23, 1940

Appeal from the Monroe County Court, WILDER, J.

Ray F. Fowler and Millard H. Ellison for appellant.

Daniel J. O'Mara, District Attorney ( Harry L. Rosenthal of counsel), for respondent.

William C. Chanler, Corporation Counsel ( Paxton Blair of counsel), for City of New York, amicus curiae.



Judgment affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: LEHMAN, Ch. J., LOUGHRAN, FINCH, RIPPEY, SEARS, LEWIS and CONWAY, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Swartz

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 23, 1940
25 N.E.2d 386 (N.Y. 1940)

In People v. Swarts (282 N.Y. 596), a judgment convicting a defendant of violating section 982 of the Penal Law was affirmed where a machine had "allowed" winning players a free game.

Summary of this case from People v. Raziano

In People v. Swartz (282 N.Y. 596), a judgment of conviction was affirmed (without opinion) in a case where the record on appeal shows that the machine "allowed" winning players a free game.

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

People v. Swartz

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HYMAN SWARTZ, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 23, 1940

Citations

25 N.E.2d 386 (N.Y. 1940)
25 N.E.2d 386

Citing Cases

Pepple v. Headrick

They are gambling devices. ( People v. Swartz, 282 N.Y. 596, 25 N.E.2d 386.) It is well said by Judge…

People v. Raziano

The machine was, therefore, a slot machine or device within the provisions of section 982 of the Penal Law.…