History
  • No items yet
midpage
People v. Diamond
41 Misc. 2d 35
N.Y. App. Term.
1963
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

Although the issuance of the summons was extraterritorial, when the defendant appeared before the court to answer a valid information filed against him, pleaded 1 ‘ not guilty ” thereto and proceeded to trial, the court acquired jurisdiction over his person (People v. Yerman, 138 Misc. 272; People v. Hagan, 138 Misc. 771, affd. 235 App. Div. 784; People v. Preble, 39 Misc 2d 411). This court does not agree with the decision in People v. Haber (20 Misc 2d 272) relied upon by the defendant. It is not consonant with the established case law nor is there any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the New York City Criminal Courts Act permitting a defendant in a criminal case to challenge the jurisdiction of the court over his person by a “ special appearance ”. The judgment of conviction should be affirmed.

Concur — Behjamih, Gulotta and S chwartz wald, JJ.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Diamond
Court Name: Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Date Published: Oct 1, 1963
Citation: 41 Misc. 2d 35
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Term.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.