In re Shelton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Shelton

123 A.D.2d 637, 506 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60781

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 A.D.2d 637 (In re Shelton) 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

In re Shelton, 123 A.D.2d 637, 506 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60781 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding for a subsequent retention order pursuant to CPL 330.20, Frank Shelton appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Rosenblatt, J.), dated July 15, 1985, as, upon a rehearing and review of an order of the County Court, Dutchess County (King, J.), dated March 11, 1985, upheld the determination that his custody be continued for a period not to exceed one year.

Appeal, as so limited, dismissed as moot, without costs or disbursements.

The one-year retention order in question has expired and it was stated at oral argument of this appeal that the appellant has been conditionally released. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as moot. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding for a subsequent retention order pursuant to CPL 330.20, Frank Shelton appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Rosenblatt, J.), dated July 15, 1985, as, upon a rehearing and review of an order of the County Court, Dutchess County (King, J.), dated March 11, 1985, upheld the determination that his custody be continued for a period not to exceed one year.

Appeal, as so limited, dismissed as moot, without costs or disbursements.

The one-year retention order in question has expired and it was stated at oral argument of this appeal that the appellant has been conditionally released. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as moot. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 637, 506 N.Y.S.2d 668, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shelton-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack