
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gabriele Maggiore, Appellant.
    Appeal — Unanimous Affirmance in Criminal Case Precludes Review of Pacts. The constitutional provision (Const, of N. T. art. 6, § 9) as to the conclusiveness of an unanimous decision of the Appellate Division as to all questions of fact is unqualified in its language ard precludes a review thereof by the Court of Appeals in criminal as well as in civil causes.
    
      People v. Maggiore. 119 App. Div. 284, affirmed.
    (Argued June 11, 1907;
    decided June 14, 1907.)
    Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 24, 3907, which affirmed a judgment of the Court of General Sessions of the county of New York, rendered upon a verdict convicting the defendant of the crime of assault in the second degree.
    
      Charles E. Le Barbier for appellant..
    
      William Travers Jerome, District Attorney {E. Crosby Kindleberger of counsel), for respondent.
   Gray, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of assault in the second degree. The conviction was based upon evidence that he had fired four times with a revolver into the complainant’s store, after an altercation with, and an assault upon the complainant’s wife over a purchase of cigarettes. The judgment has been affirmed by the unanimous vote of the justices of the Appellate Division. The appellant asks us to review the evidence upon the trial, with respect to its sufficiency and character to justify a conviction; but the unanimous affirmance below concludes this court. This is so, as well in criminal, as in civil causes. (People v. Helmer, 154 N. Y. 596 ; People v. Adams, 176 ib. 351; People v. De Garmo, 179 ib. 130.) Confusion of mind upon this subject should cease.

The case of People v. Ledwon,(153 N. Y. 10), did not come under the operation of the constitutional amendment. It has no application. In the case of People v. Gaffey, (182 N. Y. 257), the concurrence of the judges was upon the merits, or, in effect, in the result, and did not sustain the opinion otherwise. The constitutional provision as to the conclusiveness of a judgment upon all questions of fact, when unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, is unqualified in its language and there is no reason for denying its effect in criminal cases. (Constitution, art. VI, section 9.)

The judgment of conviction should be affirmed.

Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Werner and Hiscook, JJ., concur.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.  