People ex rel. Belgrave v. Mills

2021 NY Slip Op 00379, 136 N.Y.S.3d 775, 190 A.D.3d 899
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 22, 2021
Docket2020-09368
StatusPublished

This text of 2021 NY Slip Op 00379 (People ex rel. Belgrave v. Mills) 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. Belgrave v. Mills, 2021 NY Slip Op 00379, 136 N.Y.S.3d 775, 190 A.D.3d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

People ex rel. Belgrave v Mills (2021 NY Slip Op 00379)
People ex rel. Belgrave v Mills
2021 NY Slip Op 00379
Decided on January 22, 2021
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 January 22, 2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
ROBERT J. MILLER
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON
PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

2020-09368 DECISION, ORDER & JUDGMENT

[*1]The People of the State of New York, ex rel. Marlon Belgrave, petitioner,

v

Tanisha Mills, etc., respondent.


Marlon Belgrave, Bronx, NY, petitioner pro se.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Lana Schlesinger and Jodi Mandel of counsel), for respondent.



Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application to release Marlon Belgrave upon his own recognizance or, in the alternative, to set reasonable bail upon Kings County Indictment No. 620/2020. Application by the petitioner for leave to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person.

ORDERED that the application for leave to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022(b) is waived and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

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

The determination of the Supreme Court, Kings 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).

RIVERA, J.P., MILLER, BRATHWAITE NELSON and WOOTEN, 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. 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)
2021 NY Slip Op 00379, 136 N.Y.S.3d 775, 190 A.D.3d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-belgrave-v-mills-nyappdiv-2021.