Case Name: In the Matter of Albert M. Rosenblatt, as District Attorney of Dutchess County, Petitioner, v. Joseph Jiudice, as Judge of the Dutchess County Court, Respondent. William Abruzzi, Intervenor-Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1975-01-13
Citations: 47 A.D.2d 721
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Albert M. Rosenblatt, as District Attorney of Dutchess County, Petitioner, v. Joseph Jiudice, as Judge of the Dutchess County Court, Respondent. William Abruzzi, Intervenor-Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 721–721

Head Matter:
(January 13, 1975)
In the Matter of Albert M. Rosenblatt, as District Attorney of Dutchess County, Petitioner, v. Joseph Jiudice, as Judge of the Dutchess County Court, Respondent. William Abruzzi, Intervenor-Respondent.

Opinion:
On the courts own motion, its decision dated January 2, 1975 is amended by adding thereto the following: In our, opinion, the respondent Judge would have been well advised to reserve decision on the motion to-suppress to afford the District Attorney an opportunity on the trial,to establish the admissibility of the seized photographs, etc. Under the circumstances, We assume that, if a motion for reargument be made in the County Court, it will he granted to the extent herein indicated. (Motta, P. J., Hopkins, Cohalan, Christ and Shapiro, JJ., concur.