Fitzpatrick v. Cunningham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fitzpatrick v. Cunningham

193 A.D.2d 1109, 598 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5751

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

DecidedMay 28, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 1109 (Fitzpatrick v. Cunningham) 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

Fitzpatrick v. Cunningham, 193 A.D.2d 1109, 598 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5751 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition unanimously granted without costs and judgment granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: Because a court cannot inquire into the merits of the charges pending against the person named in an extradition warrant duly issued by the Governor, we find that respondent Cunningham had no authority to refuse to enforce the warrant once he ascertained the identity of the person named therein and determined that the extradition papers were in order (US Const, art IV, § 2, cl 2; CPL art 570; People ex rel. Strachan v Colon, 77 NY2d 499; People ex rel. Kotch v District Attorney of Kings County, 170 AD2d 632).

Thus, the petition is granted and judgment granted directing respondent Cunningham to enforce the extradition warrant. (Original Proceeding Pursuant to Article 78.) Present— Denman, P. J., Pine, Balio, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.

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

Petition unanimously granted without costs and judgment granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: Because a court cannot inquire into the merits of the charges pending against the person named in an extradition warrant duly issued by the Governor, we find that respondent Cunningham had no authority to refuse to enforce the warrant once he ascertained the identity of the person named therein and determined that the extradition papers were in order (US Const, art IV, § 2, cl 2; CPL art 570; People ex rel. Strachan v Colon, 77 NY2d 499; People ex rel. Kotch v District Attorney of Kings County, 170 AD2d 632).

Thus, the petition is granted and judgment granted directing respondent Cunningham to enforce the extradition warrant. (Original Proceeding Pursuant to Article 78.) Present— Denman, P. J., Pine, Balio, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 1109, 598 N.Y.S.2d 639, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzpatrick-v-cunningham-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack