People ex rel. Fusco v. Cunningham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Fusco v. Cunningham

65 A.D.2d 531, 409 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13122

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 17, 1978·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered September 16, 1978, which partially granted defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus by modifying his status from that of remand to that of bail in the sum of $200,000, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, to the extent of reducing defendant’s bail to $100,000, insurance company bail bond or cash, and, except, as thus modified, affirmed. In view of defendant’s ties to the community, bail in the sum of $100,000, would be adequate to secure his attendance at all future court proceedings. The difference be[532]*532tween the bail set at Trial Term and the bail set herein is not the efficacy of the former, vis-á-vis the latter, to restrain flight, but rather the inability of the defendant to make the higher bail. As such, it is unreasonable. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Markewich, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered September 16, 1978, which partially granted defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus by modifying his status from that of remand to that of bail in the sum of $200,000, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, to the extent of reducing defendant’s bail to $100,000, insurance company bail bond or cash, and, except, as thus modified, affirmed. In view of defendant’s ties to the community, bail in the sum of $100,000, would be adequate to secure his attendance at all future court proceedings. The difference be[532]*532tween the bail set at Trial Term and the bail set herein is not the efficacy of the former, vis-á-vis the latter, to restrain flight, but rather the inability of the defendant to make the higher bail. As such, it is unreasonable. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Markewich, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.

People ex rel. Fusco v. Cunningham, 65 A.D.2d 531, 409 N.Y.S.2d 399, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

65 A.D.2d 531 (People ex rel. Fusco v. Cunningham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related