Legal Opinion

Clary v. Harnett

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 8, 1938PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Smith (E. N.), J.

The petitioner’s operator’s license has been revoked because of his having violated subdivision 5 of section 70 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which provides that the operating of a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition constitutes a misdemeanor. Subdivision 2 of section 71 of said law provides that upon conviction of such violation the revocation of an operator’s license is mandatory. _____,

On the 1st of October, 1938, the petitioner was arrested by a State trooper on a charge of having violated said subdivision 5 of section 70; he was brought before a justice of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Ohmann v. HarnettNew York Supreme Court · 1938

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Compitello v. MealeyNew York Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Schapiro v. MealeyNew York Supreme Court · 1940
  3. In re Albroza, New York County Courts1940

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API