New York Court of Appeals, 1950

People v. Wurzler

New York Court of Appeals · Decided March 2, 1950

300 N.Y. 344; 90 N.E.2d 886

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

Pirro v. Cirigliano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
People v. Bachert (N.Y. 1987)
People v. Ali (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1971)
People v. Becvar (Suffolk County District Court 1966)
In re Garceau (Vt. 1964)
People v. Burgett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1962)
People v. Van Dusen (New York County Courts 1961)
People v. Blumling (New York County Courts 1961)
People v. Capobianco (New York County Courts 1958)
People v. Vischi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1956)
People v. Blakeslee (N.Y. 1955)
People v. D'Art (New York County Courts 1954)
People v. King (New York County Courts 1954)
People v. Weenink (New York County Courts 1952)
People v. Wurzler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1951)
People v. Gorney (New York Supreme Court 1951)
People v. Giaccio (New York Supreme Court 1950)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted in 1939, in the County Court of Broome County, upon a plea of guilty, of the crime of grand larceny in the first degree. Four years later he moved, *345by a coram nobis application in that court, to set aside the judgment of conviction. The county judge, disqualified from presiding because he had been district attorney when defendant was convicted, transferred the motion to the Supreme Court, and that court denied it. In 1947, defendant instituted another coram nobis proceeding and the county judge again transferred the matter to the Supreme Court. On this occasion, the Supreme Court justice, ascertaining that the facts asserted and that the ground relied upon were substantially the same as those previously alleged, dismissed the motion, and the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed.

The application should not have been transferred to the Supreme Court for, as we have repeatedly held, it is only the court where a defendant is tried and convicted that possesses the power to hear and decide a motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis. (See People v. McCullough, 300 N. Y. 107, 110; People v. Gersewitz, 294 N. Y. 163, 167; Matter of Morhous v. New York Supreme Court, 293 N. Y. 131, 136, 140.) When the county judge found himself unable to pass upon it, he should have requested and obtained a county judge of another county to act in his place (Code Crim. Pro., § 44).

What we have said leads, without more, to a reversal. Since the motion for coram nobis has never been heard by the only tribunal having jurisdiction in the first instance to entertain it, consideration of its merits is, of course, beyond our power.

The orders should be reversed and the matter remitted to the County Court of Broome County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and Froessel, JJ., concur.

Orders reversed, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.