person against claim in New York

1954(People v. Singer, 18 Abb.

1937(People v. Singer, 18 Abb.

1954In People v. Gillette ( 126 App. Div. 665, 670 ), in dismissing • an indictment for perjury arising out of testimony given by a defendant before a Grand Jury, it was stated: “ A person against whom the inquiry of the grand jury is directed should not be required to attend before that body, much less be sworn by it, and if he is and an indictment be found, it should be set aside upon motion, and if not, if the fact appears upon the trial, it will invalidate a conviction if one be had.

1937The correct principle applicable hereto has been enunciated in People v. Gillette ( 126 App. Div. 665, 670 ), wherein the court writes: “ A person against whom the inquiry of the grand jury is directed should not be required to attend before that body, much less be sworn by it, and if he is and an indictment be found, it should be set aside upon motion, and if not, if the fact appears upon the trial, it will invalidate a conviction, if one be had.

1994In any event, Gerzof was not harmed in any way by the scheme and therefore the unclean hands doctrine, which benefits only a party suffering injury by the person against whom the doctrine is to be invoked, is not available to him (see, Higgins v Normile, 130 AD2d 828, 829 ).

1960Co., 43 N. Y. 502 ; Gibney v. State of New York, 137 N. Y. 1 .) In order that there may be actionable negligence there must be some legal duty or obligation on the part of the person against whom the claim of negligence is made.

1960(Mink v. Keim, 291 N. Y. 300 ; Palsgraf v. Long Is.

1960Co., 43 N. Y. 502 ; Gibney v. State of New York, 137 N. Y. 1 .) In order that there may be actionable negligence there must be some legal duty or obligation on the part of the person against whom the claim of negligence is made.

1935A “ state can exercise through its coruts jurisdiction to apply to the satisfaction of a claim, interests in things subject to the jurisdiction of the State, belonging to the person against whom the claim is asserted, although the State has no jurisdiction over him.” (Restatement, Conflict of Laws, § 106; Harris v. Balk, supra; Louisville & Nashville R.

1930Where the threat to begin criminal proceedings is followed by the actual institution thereof the offense is still more serious, and in Matter of Abrahams ( 158 App. Div. 595 ) an attorney guilty of making such threats, followed by an attempt to secure the indictment of the person threatened, was suspended for one year only, in view of his youth and inexperience.

1930In Matter of Hyman ( 226 App. Div. 468 ) an attorney was censured for having written a letter in which he wrote that unless the person against whom a claim for damages for personal injuries showed “ some substantial evidence ” of his willingness to compensate the client for her injuries, “ I shah have no other alternative but to immediately criminally prosecute you for assault against my client.” Respondent in that case had endeavored to get the addressee of the letter to sign an affidavit admitting that he had committed a misdemeanor in not stopping his car after the accident.

1898The appellant insists that, notwithstanding this last provision, the lien under the statute is only enforceable against the interest of the person named; and that, while the failure to name the true owner would not affect the validity of the lien as against the interest of the person named in the notice of Zen, it cannot have the effect of binding the interest of a person against whom no claim is made; and that this construction of the statute has received the approval of this court in the Third department, in the case of Grippin v. Weed, 22 App. Div. 594 , 48 N. Y.

1848This last proposition is recognized by the supreme court in the case of Whiley v. Sherman and others, ( 3 Denio, 185 ,) and the case of Kanouse & Whigam v. Dormedy, (Id. 567,) but the plaintiff did not put his case upon this principle.