Legal Opinion
People ex rel. Miranda v. McCloskey
New York Court of Appeals
Decided April 29, 1960PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order affirmed. The witness directly responded with definite and unequivocal answers which were clear enough so that if shown to be false he would be guilty of perjury. (People ex rel. Valenti v. McCloskey, 6 N Y 2d 390, 402-403; Matter of Michael, 326 U. S. 224.) “ We are not at liberty to say * * * that ‘ the testimony is not a bona fide effort to answer the questions at all.’ ” (People ex rel. Falk v. Sheriff of N. Y. County, 258 N. Y. 437, 439; Matter of Foster v. Hastings, 263 N. Y. 311, 314; People ex rel. Valenti v. McCloskey, supra.) No opinion.
Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In Re MichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Matter of Foster v. HastingsNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
- People Ex Rel. Falk v. Sheriff of N.Y. CountyNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
3Cited by5 opinions
- Gramercy North Associates v. BidermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Black River Ltd. Partnership v. AstafanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Kenyon v. NewtonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Hartford Insurance v. HaltAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Manocherian v. Tax CommissionAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992