From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Coldiron

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Oct 23, 1974
79 Misc. 2d 338 (N.Y. App. Term 1974)

Opinion

October 23, 1974

Appeal from the City Court of Yonkers, ROBERT W. CACACE, J.

Carl A. Vergari, District Attorney ( James M. Rose and Robert I. Gruber of counsel), for appellant.

E. George Nyberg for respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

Order unanimously reversed on the law and information reinstated.

In our opinion, the failure to place above deponent's signature the form notice advising deponent of his criminal liability, pursuant to Penal Law (§ 210.45), did not render the verification of the information defective. While the information must be subscribed, this merely requires that deponent's signature be at the conclusion of the statement being verified but does not require such signature to also follow the form notice. Concededly, it would be better practice to have the form notice immediately beneath the statement being verified and directly above deponent's signature so as to forcefully call the criminal penalty for making false statements to deponent's attention (see 1 Waxner, New York Criminal Practice, ¶ 2.8). However, the placing of the notice below deponent's signature, as done on the New York State Police form used as an information here, is sufficient to constitute a verification pursuant to CPL 100.30 (subd. 1, par. [d]).

Concur — GLICKMAN, P.J., PITTONI and FARLEY, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Coldiron

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Oct 23, 1974
79 Misc. 2d 338 (N.Y. App. Term 1974)
Case details for

People v. Coldiron

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. NANCY COLDIRON…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Oct 23, 1974

Citations

79 Misc. 2d 338 (N.Y. App. Term 1974)
360 N.Y.S.2d 788

Citing Cases

People v. Sanfiel

In People v Sullivan ( 56 N.Y.2d 378), the Court of Appeals upheld a search warrant issued on an unsworn…

People v. Lexus M.

Here, to the extent that defendant argues on appeal that the information is jurisdictionally defective…