County of Onondaga v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

New York Court of Appeals

County of Onondaga v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

466 N.E.2d 146, 62 N.Y.2d 826, 477 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4385

New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 5, 1984·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners commenced this proceeding seeking relief in the nature of mandamus to compel respondents to accept sentenced prisoners within a specified period of time. Respondents concede that CPL 430.20 (subd 1) imposes upon them a clear legal obligation to accept sentenced prisoners “forthwith” (Crespo v Hall, 56 NY2d 856), but urge that this mandate has not been violated in the present case. We agree that, on this record, which indicates only that the relevant delays in accepting prisoners amount to an average of six days, petitioners have failed to establish such a clear violation of respondents’ duty as to warrant mandamus relief (contrast Crespo v Hall, supra [an action for declaratory judgment and incidental injunctive relief]).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wacht-ler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners commenced this proceeding seeking relief in the nature of mandamus to compel respondents to accept sentenced prisoners within a specified period of time. Respondents concede that CPL 430.20 (subd 1) imposes upon them a clear legal obligation to accept sentenced prisoners “forthwith” (Crespo v Hall, 56 NY2d 856), but urge that this mandate has not been violated in the present case. We agree that, on this record, which indicates only that the relevant delays in accepting prisoners amount to an average of six days, petitioners have failed to establish such a clear violation of respondents’ duty as to warrant mandamus relief (contrast Crespo v Hall, supra [an action for declaratory judgment and incidental injunctive relief]).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wacht-ler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

County of Onondaga v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 466 N.E.2d 146, 62 N.Y.2d 826, 477 N.Y.S.2d 606, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4385 (N.Y. 1984).

Pincite

466 N.E.2d 146 (County of Onondaga v. New York State Department of Correctional Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related