People ex rel. Greulich v. Fay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Greulich v. Fay

27 A.D.2d 549, 277 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2891

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 549 (People ex rel. Greulich v. Fay) 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. Greulich v. Fay, 27 A.D.2d 549, 277 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated June 26, 1965, which, after a hearing, denied his request for assignment of counsel, dismissed the writ and remanded him to respondent’s custody. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of (1) holding a new hearing; (2) assigning counsel to represent appellant on such hearing; and (3) making a determination de novo on the basis of the proof adduced upon such hearing. Ho questions of fact were considered by this court. It was error for the Special Term to have disregarded appellant’s request for the assignment of counsel to represent him and to have dismissed the writ without having granted such request (People ex rel. Slade v. Follette, 26 A D 2d 823; cf. People ex rel. De Groat v. Fay, 26 A D 2d 950). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated June 26, 1965, which, after a hearing, denied his request for assignment of counsel, dismissed the writ and remanded him to respondent’s custody. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of (1) holding a new hearing; (2) assigning counsel to represent appellant on such hearing; and (3) making a determination de novo on the basis of the proof adduced upon such hearing. Ho questions of fact were considered by this court. It was error for the Special Term to have disregarded appellant’s request for the assignment of counsel to represent him and to have dismissed the writ without having granted such request (People ex rel. Slade v. Follette, 26 A D 2d 823; cf. People ex rel. De Groat v. Fay, 26 A D 2d 950). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 549, 277 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-greulich-v-fay-nyappdiv-1966.