Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Helen Montague Van Sickle, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1963-07-10
Citations: 13 N.Y.2d 61
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Helen Montague Van Sickle, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 61–66

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Helen Montague Van Sickle, Respondent.
Argued February 26, 1963;
decided July 10, 1963.
Abraham Isseks, District Attorney (Angelo J. Ingrassia of counsel), for appellant.
The County Court of Orange County erroneously reversed the judgment of conviction upon the law when it held that a complainant could not prosecute a complaint upon his own behalf in a Court of Special Sessions. (People v. Czajka, 11 N Y 2d 253; People v. DeLeyden, 10 N Y 2d 293; People v. Leombruno, 10 N Y 2d 900; People v. Schildhaus, 4 N Y 2d 883; Matter of Turecamo Contr. Co., 259 App. Div. .1094, 260 App. Div. 253; People v. Scharer, 185 Misc. 616; People v. Black, 156 Misc. 516; People v. Wyner, 207 Misc. 673.)
Martyn Taub for respondent.
The County Court of Orange County was correct in reversing the judgment of conviction upon the law when it held that a person not an attorney, a representative of a public agency or a corporation counsel could not prosecute a complaint upon his own behalf or on behalf of the People of the State of New York in a Court of Special Sessions. (People v. Dorsey, 176 Misc. 932; People v. Czajka, 11 N Y 2d 253.)

Opinion:
Chief Judge Desmond.
I join in the court's negative answer to the only question presented to us on this appeal, that is: must a criminal conviction be reversed solely because the lay complaining witness was allowed to conduct the prosecution? If there was before us for decision the much broader question as to the District Attorney's rights and duties I would say that the courts as well as the District Attorney himself must obey the plain, clear mandate of subdivision 1 of section 700 of the County Law. That statute does not necessarily mean that the District Attorney or his deputy must be physically present at every criminal hearing in the county. However, it means at least that the District Attorney, as the elected representative of the people and charged with this responsibility, must carry the responsibility and must set up a system whereby he knows of all the criminal prosecutions in his county and either appears therein in person or by assistant or consents to appearance on his behalf by other public officers or private attorneys.
I concur for reversal.