People ex rel. Geitschier v. Bednowsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Geitschier v. Bednowsky

227 A.D.2d 510, 643 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5152

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

DecidedMay 13, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 510 (People ex rel. Geitschier v. Bednowsky) 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. Geitschier v. Bednowsky, 227 A.D.2d 510, 643 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated November 8, 1995, which, after a hearing, sustained the writ to the extent of reducing bail from $100,000, with a cash bail alternative of $50,000, to $30,000 bond with a cash alternative of $15,000.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The court which arraigned the defendant on the underlying indictment properly considered the factors set forth in CPL 510.30 (2) in setting the amount of the defendant’s bail, and its determination "was the product of 'an exercise of discretion’ ” (People ex rel. Mascia v Jacquin, 184 AD2d 542, quoting People ex rel. Parone v Phimister, 29 NY2d 580, 581). Therefore, "the habeas corpus court exceeded the narrow scope of the review powers available to it, and erred in substituting its discretion for that of the [arraignment] court” (People ex rel. Doyle v Jacquin, 186 AD2d 235; see, People ex rel. Lazer v Warden, 79 NY2d 839, 840; People ex rel. Moore v Bednosky, 198 AD2d 251, 252; People ex rel. Brown v Bednosky, 190 AD2d 836, 837; People ex rel. Mascia v Jacquin, supra). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated November 8, 1995, which, after a hearing, sustained the writ to the extent of reducing bail from $100,000, with a cash bail alternative of $50,000, to $30,000 bond with a cash alternative of $15,000.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The court which arraigned the defendant on the underlying indictment properly considered the factors set forth in CPL 510.30 (2) in setting the amount of the defendant’s bail, and its determination "was the product of 'an exercise of discretion’ ” (People ex rel. Mascia v Jacquin, 184 AD2d 542, quoting People ex rel. Parone v Phimister, 29 NY2d 580, 581). Therefore, "the habeas corpus court exceeded the narrow scope of the review powers available to it, and erred in substituting its discretion for that of the [arraignment] court” (People ex rel. Doyle v Jacquin, 186 AD2d 235; see, People ex rel. Lazer v Warden, 79 NY2d 839, 840; People ex rel. Moore v Bednosky, 198 AD2d 251, 252; People ex rel. Brown v Bednosky, 190 AD2d 836, 837; People ex rel. Mascia v Jacquin, supra). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 510, 643 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-geitschier-v-bednowsky-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack