People ex rel. Angell v. Scoralick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Angell v. Scoralick

265 A.D.2d 354, 697 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9664

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 354 (People ex rel. Angell v. Scoralick) 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. Angell v. Scoralick, 265 A.D.2d 354, 697 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9664 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), dated May 4, 1999, which dismissed the proceeding.

[355]*355Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Pursuant to the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in New York in CPL article 570, the petitioner has the right to challenge extradition to another State in a habeas corpus proceeding (see, CPL 570.24). However, judicial review is limited to four inquiries: (1) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (2) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding State; (3) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (4) whether the petitioner is a fugitive (see, Michigan v Doran, 439 US 282, 289; People ex rel. Strachan v Colon, 77 NY2d 499, 502; People ex rel. Quarterman v Commissioner of N. Y. City Dept. of Correction, 183 AD2d 736). Here, the extradition documents are facially sufficient and meet all of the requirements of a proper demand for extradition (see, CPL 570.08; People ex rel. Kotch v District Attorney of Kings County, 170 AD2d 632).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), dated May 4, 1999, which dismissed the proceeding.

[355]*355Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Pursuant to the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in New York in CPL article 570, the petitioner has the right to challenge extradition to another State in a habeas corpus proceeding (see, CPL 570.24). However, judicial review is limited to four inquiries: (1) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order; (2) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding State; (3) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition; and (4) whether the petitioner is a fugitive (see, Michigan v Doran, 439 US 282, 289; People ex rel. Strachan v Colon, 77 NY2d 499, 502; People ex rel. Quarterman v Commissioner of N. Y. City Dept. of Correction, 183 AD2d 736). Here, the extradition documents are facially sufficient and meet all of the requirements of a proper demand for extradition (see, CPL 570.08; People ex rel. Kotch v District Attorney of Kings County, 170 AD2d 632).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 354, 697 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-angell-v-scoralick-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack