People ex rel. Clinton v. Warden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Clinton v. Warden

55 A.D.3d 402, 864 N.Y.S.2d 913

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 402 (People ex rel. Clinton v. Warden) 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. Clinton v. Warden, 55 A.D.3d 402, 864 N.Y.S.2d 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Judith Lieb, J), entered May 30, 2006, which denied and dismissed petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On December 13, 2005, respondent Division of Parole requested an adjournment of petitioner’s final parole revocation hearing. When the court proposed adjourning the hearing to January 9, 2006, petitioner’s counsel informed the court he would be away that week, and did not object when the court stated that the next available date was January 30 and that the 21-day period from January 9 to January 30 would be charged to petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner’s claim that the 21-day period was improperly excluded in determining whether his final hearing was held within 90 days of his waiver of his right to a preliminary hearing, is unpreserved (see People ex rel. Williams v Allard, 19 AD3d 890 [2005]), and we decline to review it. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, McGuire, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Judith Lieb, J), entered May 30, 2006, which denied and dismissed petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On December 13, 2005, respondent Division of Parole requested an adjournment of petitioner’s final parole revocation hearing. When the court proposed adjourning the hearing to January 9, 2006, petitioner’s counsel informed the court he would be away that week, and did not object when the court stated that the next available date was January 30 and that the 21-day period from January 9 to January 30 would be charged to petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner’s claim that the 21-day period was improperly excluded in determining whether his final hearing was held within 90 days of his waiver of his right to a preliminary hearing, is unpreserved (see People ex rel. Williams v Allard, 19 AD3d 890 [2005]), and we decline to review it. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, McGuire, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 402, 864 N.Y.S.2d 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-clinton-v-warden-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack