People ex rel. Brown v. Hanslmaier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Brown v. Hanslmaier

209 A.D.2d 801, 618 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11126

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 801 (People ex rel. Brown v. Hanslmaier) 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. Brown v. Hanslmaier, 209 A.D.2d 801, 618 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11126 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kane, J.), entered January 6, 1994 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding arguing that the evidence before the Grand Jury was insufficient to support his indictment. However, because this argument could have been raised by petitioner on his direct appeal or in his CPL article 440 motion, Supreme Court properly denied the application for a writ of habeas corpus. We also see no reason to depart from traditional orderly procedure in this case. Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as unpersuasive.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kane, J.), entered January 6, 1994 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding arguing that the evidence before the Grand Jury was insufficient to support his indictment. However, because this argument could have been raised by petitioner on his direct appeal or in his CPL article 440 motion, Supreme Court properly denied the application for a writ of habeas corpus. We also see no reason to depart from traditional orderly procedure in this case. Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as unpersuasive.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 801, 618 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-brown-v-hanslmaier-nyappdiv-1994.