Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Calman Cooper, Nathan Wissner and Harry A. Stein, Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1954-03-12
Citations: 306 N.Y. 867
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Calman Cooper, Nathan Wissner and Harry A. Stein, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 306
Pages: 867–869

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Calman Cooper, Nathan Wissner and Harry A. Stein, Appellants.
Argued January 21, 1954;
decided March 12, 1954.
Nathan Kestnbaum for Caiman Cooper and Nathan Wissner, appellants.
John J. Duff and Nathan Kestnbaum for Harry A. Stein, appellant.
Samuel Faile, District Attorney (JohnJ. O’Brien of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Upon the papers before us, the County Court should have held a hearing upon defendants' application for an order in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis to determine whether defendants' right to counsel and a fair trial was interfered with and impaired. (See, e.g., Matter of Fusco v. Moses, 304 N. Y. 424; Coplon v. United States, 191 F. 2d 749, certiorari denied 342 U. S. 926.) Accordingly, the County Court is directed to hold a hearing with respect to defendants' specification that they were deprived of their right to counsel. Decision upon reargument of the appeal is withheld pending such hearing. (Cf. People v. Shilitano, 215 N. Y. 715; People v. Arata, 254 N. Y. 565; People v. Durling, 303 N. Y. 382.)
Determination of appeal on reargument withheld and matter of the application for a writ of error coram nobis remitted to the County Court, Westchester County, for proceedings in accordance with tMs opinion.
Appeal taken as of right from the order of the County Court, Westchester County, denying defendants' motion for a writ of error coram nobis dismissed.
Lewis, Ch. J., Conway, Desmond, Fuld and Froessel, JJ., concur; Dye and Van Voorhis, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the judgment of conviction upon the ground that the allegations in the petition are insufficient to justify the granting of a writ of error coram nobis.