People ex rel. Franza v. Connolly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Franza v. Connolly

140 A.D.3d 803, 30 N.Y.S.3d 918

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

DecidedJune 1, 2016

Docket2015-02294

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 140 A.D.3d 803 (People ex rel. Franza v. Connolly) 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. Franza v. Connolly, 140 A.D.3d 803, 30 N.Y.S.3d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

In proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated January 13, 2015, as granted the respondent’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the petition and dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Since the contentions raised by the petitioner in support of habeas corpus relief could have been raised on direct appeal or in a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, the Supreme Court *804 properly determined that the requested relief was inappropriate (see CPLR 7003; People ex rel. Goss v Smith, 69 NY2d 727 [1987]; People ex rel. Bachman v Walsh, 101 AD3d 1316 [2012]; People ex rel. Barrett v Scully, 203 AD2d 311 [1994]; People ex rel. Bentley v Scully, 177 AD2d 732 [1991]). Moreover, the petitioner unsuccessfully brought several previous petitions seeking habeas corpus relief on the same grounds as those asserted herein (see People ex rel. Franza v James, 118 AD3d 1357 [2014]; People ex rel. Franza v Sheahan, 100 AD3d 1315 [2012]; People ex rel. Franza v Walsh, 76 AD3d 1160 [2010]), and he has presented no new circumstances that would warrant the relief sought in this proceeding (see People ex rel. Cook v Ross, 232 AD2d 591 [1996]).

Eng, P.J., Mastro, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

In proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), dated January 13, 2015, as granted the respondent’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the petition and dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Since the contentions raised by the petitioner in support of habeas corpus relief could have been raised on direct appeal or in a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, the Supreme Court *804 properly determined that the requested relief was inappropriate (see CPLR 7003; People ex rel. Goss v Smith, 69 NY2d 727 [1987]; People ex rel. Bachman v Walsh, 101 AD3d 1316 [2012]; People ex rel. Barrett v Scully, 203 AD2d 311 [1994]; People ex rel. Bentley v Scully, 177 AD2d 732 [1991]). Moreover, the petitioner unsuccessfully brought several previous petitions seeking habeas corpus relief on the same grounds as those asserted herein (see People ex rel. Franza v James, 118 AD3d 1357 [2014]; People ex rel. Franza v Sheahan, 100 AD3d 1315 [2012]; People ex rel. Franza v Walsh, 76 AD3d 1160 [2010]), and he has presented no new circumstances that would warrant the relief sought in this proceeding (see People ex rel. Cook v Ross, 232 AD2d 591 [1996]).

Eng, P.J., Mastro, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 803, 30 N.Y.S.3d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-franza-v-connolly-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack