FRIED v. NEW YORK, 378 U.S. 578 (1964)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
FRIED v. NEW YORK, 378 U.S. 578 (1964) 378 U.S. 578FRIED v. NEW YORK.
APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK,
FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. No. 330.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
Reported below: 18 App. Div. 2d 996, 238 N.Y.S.2d 742.
Herbert Monte Levy for appellant.
Frank S. Hogan and H. Richard Uviller for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE STEWART are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the judgment reversed.
Opinions
APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. No. 330.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. Reported below: 18 App. Div. 2d 996, 238 N.Y.S.2d 742. Herbert Monte Levy for appellant. Frank S. Hogan and H. Richard Uviller for appellee. PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE STEWART are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the judgment reversed. Page 378 U.S. 578, 579
U.S. Supreme Court
FRIED v. NEW YORK, 378 U.S. 578 (1964) 378 U.S. 578 FRIED v. NEW YORK.APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, FIRST
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. No. 330.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. Reported below: 18 App. Div. 2d 996, 238 N.Y.S.2d 742. Herbert Monte Levy for appellant. Frank S. Hogan and H. Richard Uviller for appellee. PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE STEWART are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the judgment reversed. Page 378 U.S. 578, 579
Search This Case
