Latham v. Henderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Latham v. Henderson

59 A.D.2d 1060, 400 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14353

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.2d 1060 (Latham v. Henderson) 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

Latham v. Henderson, 59 A.D.2d 1060, 400 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Cayuga County, for a hearing in accordance [1061]*1061with the following memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment which dismissed his application pursuant to CPLR article 78, for a judgment directing respondents to return to petitioner a sum allegedly taken out of his account at the Attica Correctional Facility, without authorization, representing payment for photographs ordered by petitioner. Petitioner’s application was dismissed without an inquiry into the factual issues on the ground that the relief requested could not be obtained by this type of proceeding. (Cf. Matter of Caggiano v Frank, 44 AD2d 828.) Accordingly, this matter is remitted for a hearing at which respondents’ answer to the petition may he received and a proper disposition of the case made. (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga Supreme Court—article 78.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons and Dillon, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Cayuga County, for a hearing in accordance [1061]*1061with the following memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment which dismissed his application pursuant to CPLR article 78, for a judgment directing respondents to return to petitioner a sum allegedly taken out of his account at the Attica Correctional Facility, without authorization, representing payment for photographs ordered by petitioner. Petitioner’s application was dismissed without an inquiry into the factual issues on the ground that the relief requested could not be obtained by this type of proceeding. (Cf. Matter of Caggiano v Frank, 44 AD2d 828.) Accordingly, this matter is remitted for a hearing at which respondents’ answer to the petition may he received and a proper disposition of the case made. (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga Supreme Court—article 78.) Present—Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons and Dillon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 1060, 400 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latham-v-henderson-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack