Court of Appeals of the State of New York.Submitted June 12, 1944
Decided June 14, 1944
Motion by respondent for reargument denied. Nothing in our per curiam opinion was intended to mean that a finding of innocence by the jury, at the new trial, as to one or more of the acts charged in the 5th and 8th counts of the indictment, will
Page 698
necessarily result in a similar finding of innocence as to other allegedly criminal acts charged in those counts. All we intended to say was that, on the prosecution’s theory and on the testimony of the prosecutrix, one person only dealt with the prosecutrix in those transactions. (See 293 N.Y. 16.)
27 N.Y.S.2d 198 CORDAS et al. v. PEERLESS TRANSP. CO. et al. City Court of…
222 N.Y. 88 (1917) Dec 4, 1917 · New York Court of Appeals Otis F. Wood, Appellant,…
81 A.D.2d 434 (1981) 440 N.Y.S. 2d 941 Aharon Rahabi, Appellant, v. Jack Morrison et…
48 Misc.2d 345 (1965) In the Matter of The Estate of Joseph Schlinger, Deceased. Surrogate's…
103 A.D.2d 632 (1984)481 N.Y.S. 2d 545 Angelo J. Bartolone, Appellant, v. Lynne A. L.…
Matter of C.C. v D.C. 2025 NY Slip Op 05017 Decided on September 18, 2025…