Leo G. Hosenfeld for defendant.
Joseph A. Haney, District Attorney, for plaintiff.
defendant was involved having occurred in the navigable waters of Lake Ontario, which includes the channel area, which is the only area in the lake which boats travel over when about to leave the lake or where they enter the lake if leaving the bay, the Justice under the applicable provisions of the Navigation Law had no jurisdiction. Since the Justice did not have jurisdiction, the judgment entered upon the plea of guilty by defendant is a nullity. "Nevertheless in the actual rendition of the judgment, the court must remain within its jurisdiction and powers. For it is the power or authority behind a judgment, rather than the mere result reached, which determines its validity and immunity from collateral attack. A wrong decision made within the limits of the court's authority is error correctable on appeal or other direct review, but a wrong, or for that matter a correct, decision where the court in rendering it oversteps its jurisdiction and power is void and may be set aside either directly or collaterally." (1 Freeman on Judgments [5th ed.], pp. 733-734.) While the time of the defendant to appeal has long since expired, this court has control over the certificates of conviction filed in the office of the County Clerk by a Court of Special Sessions. (
People v. Chmielewski, 153 Misc. 386;
People v. Mulner's Tavern, 157 Misc. 227.) A defendant against whom a judgment of conviction has been obtained without jurisdiction and who has failed to appeal within the time prescribed by statute otherwise would be without remedy. The District Attorney with commendable fairness stated on the argument of this motion that he had no argument which he desired to offer on the law covering this matter. The conviction being a nullity, and the defendant having no power to waive the question of jurisdiction, the motion must be granted.