From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Tifft

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 20, 1976
51 A.D.2d 879 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

February 20, 1976

Present — Cardamone, J.P., Simons, Mahoney, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.


Motion for change of venue denied. Memorandum: It does not appear on this application that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in Jefferson County. Since the case has not yet progressed to the voir dire of potential jurors, we deem this application premature (People v Hatch, 46 A.D.2d 721). We further note that the District Attorney of Jefferson County did not personally appear to oppose the defendant's motion to change the venue of this action, failed to file papers in opposition to defendant's application and took no position. A district attorney has an obligation to appear and answer applications of this nature. His inaction in this case plainly does not meet those responsibilities (see People v Pitsley, 37 A.D.2d 905; People v Holcombe, 34 A.D.2d 728; People v Houston, 31 A.D.2d 777).


Summaries of

People v. Tifft

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 20, 1976
51 A.D.2d 879 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

People v. Tifft

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT TIFFT, Defendant

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

Date published: Feb 20, 1976

Citations

51 A.D.2d 879 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)