People ex rel. Freedman v. Warden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Freedman v. Warden

184 A.D.2d 435

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

DecidedJune 25, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 435 (People ex rel. Freedman 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. Freedman v. Warden, 184 A.D.2d 435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County [436]*436(Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.), entered November 6, 1991, denying petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus to be admitted to bail, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

When bail was set on the superseding indictment at $125,000, the Assistant District Attorney in charge of the case was on vacation and the full facts concerning this relator were not made known to the arraignment court which set bail. Accordingly, it was improper for the Assistant District Attorney in charge to make the facts known to the bail-setting court, and to do so ex parte. Upon review of the minutes of that ex parte proceeding, we agree with the court that bail should be revoked and that defendant should remain on remand status. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County [436]*436(Herbert J. Adlerberg, J.), entered November 6, 1991, denying petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus to be admitted to bail, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

When bail was set on the superseding indictment at $125,000, the Assistant District Attorney in charge of the case was on vacation and the full facts concerning this relator were not made known to the arraignment court which set bail. Accordingly, it was improper for the Assistant District Attorney in charge to make the facts known to the bail-setting court, and to do so ex parte. Upon review of the minutes of that ex parte proceeding, we agree with the court that bail should be revoked and that defendant should remain on remand status. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-freedman-v-warden-nyappdiv-1992.