Legal Opinion

People v. Consolidated Edison Co.

New Rochelle City Court

Decided March 9, 1964PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFrank H. Connelly, J.

Defendant, appearing “ specially ”, moves to vacate the service of the summons upon it because of supposed irregularities in its contents and mode of service.

Except for the possible sanction of a $25 fine (Code Grim. Pro., § 150), a Criminal summons may be disregarded by an individual defendant for, unlike a civil summons, its service does not confer jurisdiction over his person (People v. Levins, 152 Misc. 650; People v. Marchetti, 154 Misc. 147; People v. Le Bous, 29 Misc 2d 850). That is accomplished by obtaining the defendant’s physical presence before the Bench, whether he be brought…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. People ex rel. Mertig v. JohnstonNew York Supreme Court · 1946
  2. People v. LevinsNew York Court of Special Session · 1934
  3. People v. MarchettiNew York Court of Special Session · 1934
  4. People v. Perfecto Chemical Co.New York Court of Special Session · 1924
  5. People v. Le BousBinghamton City Court · 1961

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. People v. ByfieldCriminal Court of the City of New York · 1986
  2. People v. MacFarlene Co.Criminal Court of the City of New York · 1985
  3. Coville v. BennettNew York Supreme Court · 1968
  4. People v. Alrich Restaurant Corp.Nassau County District Court · 1967
  5. People v. MulliganSuffolk County District Court · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API