People ex rel. Brady v. Scully
This text of 111 A.D.2d 419 (People ex rel. Brady v. Scully) 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.
Opinion
In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the [420]*420Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated February 10, 1983, which, after a hearing, dismissed the writ.
Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
No factual or legal basis has been alleged which would render the indictment underlying petitioner’s conviction jurisdiction-ally defective (cf. People ex rel. Sales v LeFevre, 93 AD2d 945, lv denied 60 NY2d 558). Moreover, since all of the remaining issues either could have been raised on direct appeal or on a motion pursuant to CPL article 440, or would not result in petitioner’s immediate release, habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy (see, People ex rel. Kaplan v Commissioner of Correction of City of N. Y., 60 NY2d 648, 649; People ex rel. Douglas v Vincent, 50 NY2d 901, 903; People ex rel. Taylor v Commissioner of Correction, 100 AD2d 525; People ex rel. Myers v Dalsheim, 97 AD2d 447, lv denied 61 NY2d 601; People ex rel. Sales v LeFevre, supra; People ex rel. Hall v LeFevre, 92 AD2d 956, affd 60 NY2d 579). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
111 A.D.2d 419, 489 N.Y.S.2d 382, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-brady-v-scully-nyappdiv-1985.