Case ID: ny-st-rep_48/html/0811-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People ex rel. The Commissioners of Public Charities and Correction, Resp’ts, v. George I. Glaze, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed October, 20, 1892.)
    
    Criminal law—Appeal—Disorderly persons.
    An appeal from a conviction by a police magistrate in the city of New York lies directly to the court of general sessions.
    Appeal from a judgment of the court of general sessions, dismissing, on jurisdictional grounds, defendant’s appeal from a judgment of conviction as a disorderly person, in that defendant had neglected to provide for his wife according to his means.
    
      W. H. Arnoux, for app’lt; H. J. Appel, Jr., for resp’ts.
   Per Curiam.

It seems to us apparent by the amendments made to §§ 515 and 749 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (which is the latest expression of the legislature regulating, the practice in criminal cases and special proceedings of - a criminal nature), that it was the intention to give a right of appeal from the lower criminal courts directly to the court of sessions of the county. The learned judge below, in his criticism upon the language of § 749 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that it does not refer to the court of general sessions of the city and county of Hew York, evidently overlooked § 88 of that Code, which defines the courts of sessions. That section is as follows: “ The courts of sessions are (1) the courts of sessions in counties other than Hew York; (2) the court of general sessions in the city and county of Hew York.” Therefore, when in § 749 the term “ the court of sessions of the county ” is used, it evidently refers to the court of sessions as defined in § 38, which includes the court of general sessions in the city and county of Hew York. It would, therefore, seem that it was the intention of the legislature in these proceedings to adopt a uniform practice, by clear and explicit terms, and the right to appeal from the conviction of a police magistrate to the court of general sessions in the county of Hew York seems to be expressly given. The section reads: “A judgment upon conviction rendered by a police court or police magistrate may be reviewed by the court of sessions of the county upon an appeal as prescribed by this title, and not 'otherwise;” language in respect to which there does not seem to be room for any other interpretation than that adopted. We are- of opinion, therefore, that the judgment appealed from should be reversed, and the record remitted to the court of general sessions for further action.

Van Brunt, P. J., O’Brien and Patterson, JJ., concur.