People ex rel. Ashton v. Dannhauser

2024 NY Slip Op 04653
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 27, 2024
Docket2024-09094
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 04653 (People ex rel. Ashton v. Dannhauser) 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. Ashton v. Dannhauser, 2024 NY Slip Op 04653 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

People ex rel. Ashton v Dannhauser (2024 NY Slip Op 04653)
People ex rel. Ashton v Dannhauser
2024 NY Slip Op 04653
Decided on September 27, 2024
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 September 27, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
LARA J. GENOVESI
CARL J. LANDICINO, JJ.

2024-09094

[*1]The People of the State of New York, ex rel. Brittany Ashton, on behalf of S.C., petitioner,

v

Jess Dannhauser, etc., respondent.


Twyla Carter, New York, NY (Brittany Ashton pro se and Marion Elizabeth Campbell of counsel), for petitioner.

Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Thomas B. Litsky, Timothy Pezzoli, and James Joseph Gandia of counsel), for respondent.



Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application to release S.C. upon his own recognizance or, in the alternative, to set reasonable bail upon Richmond County Indictment No. 70627/2024. Application by the petitioner to seal the papers filed in connection with the application for a writ of habeas corpus.

ORDERED that the application to seal the papers filed in connection with the application for a writ of habeas corpus is granted to the extent that the papers filed in connection with the application for a writ of habeas corpus are marked confidential and may not be viewed by the public but may be viewed by the parties and counsel appearing on their behalf, and the application to seal is otherwise denied; and it is further,

ADJUDGED that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, did not violate "constitutional or statutory standards" (People ex rel. Klein v Krueger , 25 NY2d 497, 499; see People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson , 48 NY2d 230).

DUFFY, CHRISTOPHER, GENOVESI and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People ex rel. Klein v. Krueger
255 N.E.2d 552 (New York Court of Appeals, 1969)
People ex rel. Rosenthal v. Wolfson
397 N.E.2d 745 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 04653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-ashton-v-dannhauser-nyappdiv-2024.