Brown v. Golia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Golia

224 A.D.2d 416, 638 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 907

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 5, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 416 (Brown v. Golia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Golia, 224 A.D.2d 416, 638 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to enjoin the respondent Joseph G. Golia, a Justice of the Supreme Court, from enforcing so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 31, 1995, as directs the [417]*417petitioner, the District Attorney of Queens County, to conduct a retention hearing pursuant to CPL 730.50 and to transport the respondent Tatiana B., a defendant in a criminal action pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Indictment No. 182/89, to that hearing.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the respondent is enjoined from enforcing the order dated January 31,1995, insofar as it directs the District Attorney of Queens County to conduct a retention hearing pursuant to CPL 730.50 and to transport the respondent Tatiana B. to the hearing.

It is clear from the language of CPL 730.50 (2) that the District Attorney is not a proper party to a retention hearing and that such a hearing must be conducted by the court that issued the temporary order of commitment (cf., People v Pasternack, 113 Misc 2d 317). Justice Golia exceeded his authority when he ordered the District Attorney to conduct a retention hearing and to transport the respondent Tatiana B. to the hearing (see generally, Matter of Holtzman v Hellenbrand, 130 AD2d 749). Therefore, the petition must be granted. Thompson, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition to enjoin the respondent Joseph G. Golia, a Justice of the Supreme Court, from enforcing so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 31, 1995, as directs the [417]*417petitioner, the District Attorney of Queens County, to conduct a retention hearing pursuant to CPL 730.50 and to transport the respondent Tatiana B., a defendant in a criminal action pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Indictment No. 182/89, to that hearing.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the respondent is enjoined from enforcing the order dated January 31,1995, insofar as it directs the District Attorney of Queens County to conduct a retention hearing pursuant to CPL 730.50 and to transport the respondent Tatiana B. to the hearing.

It is clear from the language of CPL 730.50 (2) that the District Attorney is not a proper party to a retention hearing and that such a hearing must be conducted by the court that issued the temporary order of commitment (cf., People v Pasternack, 113 Misc 2d 317). Justice Golia exceeded his authority when he ordered the District Attorney to conduct a retention hearing and to transport the respondent Tatiana B. to the hearing (see generally, Matter of Holtzman v Hellenbrand, 130 AD2d 749). Therefore, the petition must be granted. Thompson, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 416, 638 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-golia-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack