People ex rel. Barta v. Molina

196 N.Y.S.3d 801, 220 A.D.3d 953, 2023 NY Slip Op 05409
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 25, 2023
Docket2023-09535
StatusPublished

This text of 196 N.Y.S.3d 801 (People ex rel. Barta v. Molina) 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. Barta v. Molina, 196 N.Y.S.3d 801, 220 A.D.3d 953, 2023 NY Slip Op 05409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

People ex rel. Barta v Molina (2023 NY Slip Op 05409)
People ex rel. Barta v Molina
2023 NY Slip Op 05409
Decided on October 25, 2023
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 October 25, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
WILLIAM G. FORD
CARL J. LANDICINO, JJ.

2023-09535

[*1]The People of the State of New York ex rel. Peter A. Barta, on Behalf of Shyheid Gibson, petitioner,

v

 Louis A. Molina, etc., respondent.


Queens Defenders, Forest Hills, NY (Peter A. Barta pro se of counsel), for petitioner.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott, Edan Benmelech, and Barbara Irala of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & JUDGMENT

Writ of habeas corpus, inter alia, in the nature of an application for the immediate release of Shyheid Gibson upon Queens County Indictment No. 72899/2023.

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

In light of Shyheid Gibson's release on October 19, 2023, the petition has been rendered academic to the extent that it seeks his immediate release (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 713-714). Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply in this proceeding (see id. at 714-715).

Moreover, the petitioner failed to establish entitlement to any other relief sought.

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., MALTESE, FORD and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Acting Clerk of the Court



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

Related

Hearst Corp. v. Clyne
409 N.E.2d 876 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
196 N.Y.S.3d 801, 220 A.D.3d 953, 2023 NY Slip Op 05409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-barta-v-molina-nyappdiv-2023.