People ex rel. Adamson v. Griffin

2019 NY Slip Op 8683
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 4, 2019
DocketIndex No. 1966/17
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 8683 (People ex rel. Adamson v. Griffin) 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
People ex rel. Adamson v. Griffin, 2019 NY Slip Op 8683 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

People ex rel. Adamson v Griffin (2019 NY Slip Op 08683)
People ex rel. Adamson v Griffin
2019 NY Slip Op 08683
Decided on December 4, 2019
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on December 4, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
HECTOR D. LASALLE
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

2018-00202
(Index No. 1966/17)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, ex rel. Alty Adamson, appellant,

v

Thomas Griffin, etc., respondent.


Alty Adamson, Stormville, NY, for appellant.

Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Andrew W. Amend and Amit R. Vora of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70 for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Christine A. Sproat, J.), dated November 22, 2017. The judgment, without a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The contentions raised by the petitioner in support of habeas corpus relief could have been raised on his direct appeal from the judgment of conviction or in a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10. Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the requested relief was inappropriate (see People ex rel. Gladden v Griffin, 149 AD3d 859; People ex rel. Franza v Connolly, 140 AD3d 803). The court did not err in denying the defendant's request for the appointment of counsel, as the petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing of need for legal counsel (see People ex rel. Williams v La Vallee, 19 NY2d 238).

CHAMBERS, J.P., MALTESE, LASALLE and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People Ex Rel. Williams v. La Vallee
225 N.E.2d 735 (New York Court of Appeals, 1967)
People ex rel. Franza v. Connolly
140 A.D.3d 803 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People ex rel. Gladden v. Griffin
2017 NY Slip Op 2805 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 8683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-adamson-v-griffin-nyappdiv-2019.