People v. Short, 208 A.D.2d 1047 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Short, 208 A.D.2d 1047 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …a judge or justice removed by the (c)ourt of (a)ppeals shall be ineligible to hold other judicial office at p. 1048 ⚠ not in text
20 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Halsey v. Butler (nyappdiv, 2015-12-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Halsey v. Butler
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The proceeding must be dismissed as academic, since the respondent no longer holds the public office of Treasurer of the Bridgehampton Fire District (see Matter of Kalodukas v Berentsen, 121 AD3d 1476, 1477 [2014]; Matter of Papke v Dolan, 116 AD3d 779 [2014]; Matter of Gumo v Canzoneri, 263 AD2d 456, 457 [1999]; Matter of Campisi Scelba, 211 AD2d 633 [1995]; Matter of DeFalco v Doetsch, 208 AD2d 1047, 1048 [1994]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kalodukas v. Berentsen
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
To the extent that petitioners assert that respondent’s removal would prevent him from holding public office in the future, we note that findings against an official in a removal proceeding are not a bar to reelection (see Matter of DeFalco v Doetsch, 208 AD2d 1047, 1048 [1994]; compare NY Const, art VI, § 22 [h] [“A judge or justice removed by the (C)ourt of (A)ppeals shall be ineligible to hold other judicial office”]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MatterofKalodukasvBerentsen
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur. 1 To the extent that petitioners assert that respondent's removal would prevent him from holding public office in the future, we note that findings against an official in a removal proceeding are not a bar to reelection (see Matter of DeFalco v Doetsch, 208 AD2d 1047, 1048 [1994]; compare NY Const, art VI § 22 [h] ["A judge or justice removed by the [C]ourt of [A]ppeals shall be ineligible to hold other judicial office."]). -3- 517973 ADJUDGED that the motion to dismiss is granted, with costs, and petition dismissed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kalodukas v. Berentsen
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
To the extent that petitioners assert that respondent’s removal would prevent him from holding public office in the future, we note that findings against an official in a removal proceeding are not a bar to reelection (see Matter of DeFalco v Doetsch, 208 AD2d 1047, 1048 [1994]; compare NY Const, art VI, § 22 [h] [“A judge or justice removed by the (C)ourt of (A)ppeals shall be ineligible to hold other judicial office”]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Warren v. Bielecki
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as respondents no longer hold public office, the proceeding is moot (see Matter of Copp v Lankford, 283 AD2d 980 [2001]; Matter of McCoach v Maine, 247 AD2d 784 [1998]; Matter of DeFalco v Doetsch, 208 AD2d 1047, 1048 [1994]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hart v. Trumansburg Board of Trustees (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
In any event, even assuming that respondents’ conduct constituted a violation of the Open Meetings Law, these allegations do not rise to the level of “unscrupulous conduct or gross dereliction of duty . . . [or] connote a pattern of misconduct and abuse of authority” justifying removal (Matter of McCarthy v Sanford, 24 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2005] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Chandler v Weir, supra at 796; Matter of Miller v Balland, supra at 917; cf. Matter of DeFalco v Doetsch, 208 AD2d 1047, 1049-1050 [1994]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McCoach v. Maine
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · confidence medium
Were we to address the merits of petitioner’s allegations, however, we would be inclined to dismiss the petition for the proof does not, in our view, demonstrate that respondent engaged in the kind of “unscrupulous conduct or gross dereliction of duty” (Matter of Salvador v Naylor, 222 AD2d 931, 932 ) that would justify the drastic remedy of removal from office (see, Matter of Morin v Gallagher, 221 AD2d 765 ; Matter of Beats v Carpenter, 61 AD2d 320, 322 ; compare, Matter of West v Grant, 243 AD2d 815, 816-817 ; Matter of DeFalco v Doetsch, supra, at 1049-1050; Matter of Swope v Kean, 7…
discussed Cited "see" B Matter of Greco v. Jenkins
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: accord · confidence high
Although the Referee’s findings are not binding upon this Court, they serve “to inform [our] conscience” (Matter of Gehr v Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 304 NY 436, 440 [1952] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord Matter of DeFalco v Doetsch, 208 AD2d 1047, 1050 [1994]) and, upon our independent review, we find that removal is warranted.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Pflaum v. Town of Stuyvesant
N.D.N.Y. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also DeFalco v. Doetsch, 617 N.Y.S.2d 415 , 208 A.D.2d 1047 (N.Y.App.Div.1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Shawn U. Short
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 20, 1994.
208 A.D.2d 1047
1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9789
Published

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schuyler County (Callanan, Sr., J.), rendered May 22, 1992, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child.

Defendant was convicted after a trial of the crimes of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 5 to 15 years for the rape and sodomy convictions and one year for the conviction of endangering the welfare of a child.

We find no error in County Court’s denial of defendant’s suppression motion. The transcript of the suppression hearing establishes that, prior to giving his statement, defendant was informed of his constitutional rights and knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived them. Any deception by the police in procuring defendant’s presence at the police station for questioning was not so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process. Further, there was no appreciable break in police questioning necessitating repetition of the Miranda warnings. Finally, we find no support in the record for defendant’s conclusory allegations of juror coercion.

Crew III, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.