Home/New York Court of Appeals/MATTER OF WILCOX v. Dwyer

MATTER OF WILCOX v. Dwyer

401 N.E.2d 908, 48 N.Y.2d 1003, 425 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2053
New York Court of Appeals·Decided January 8, 1980·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the petition dismissed, without costs. The People may appeal from the sentence (CPL 450.20, subd 4; 450.30, subd 2). On the appeal they may argue that procedures prescribed by statute were not followed at the sentencing (People v Yanicelli, 33 NY2d 621, 40 NY2d 598). That would include a claim that the court improperly denied the People access to the presentencing report by misinterpreting CPL 390.50 (subd 2). In view of the fact that the issue may be raised on direct appeal, it was error for the Appellate Division to have entertained the application for article 78 relief in the nature of prohibition.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

*1005 Judgment reversed, etc.

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

MATTER OF WILCOX v. Dwyer, 401 N.E.2d 908, 48 N.Y.2d 1003, 425 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2053 (N.Y. 1980).

401 N.E.2d 908 (MATTER OF WILCOX v. Dwyer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jackson v. Attorney-General of New York
242 A.D.2d 955 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Herskowitz v. Tompkins
184 A.D.2d 402 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Sharpton v. Turner
169 A.D.2d 947 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Saddlemire
79 A.D.2d 1074 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Nicholson v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct
409 N.E.2d 818 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)