People Ex Rel. Harris v. Lindsay

205 N.E.2d 312, 15 N.Y.2d 751, 257 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1665
New York Court of Appeals·Decided January 14, 1965·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Order affirmed. Appellant asserts in this court that she has been convicted for not doing the impossible, in that she has not operated the heating system in her multiple dwelling which she contends she has been financially unable to do on account of the reduction in rents to $1.00 per month per apartment. That, she now asserts, constitutes a denial of due process of law. She has not appealed from her judgment of conviction, but has sought to raise the question by the postconviction remedy of habeas, corpus. The petition is too sparse in its statements of fact to serve as the foundation for any relief. The order dismissing her writ is, therefore, affirmed, without prejudice to her position in any new action or proceeding if the facts warrant such relief.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke and Scileppi. Judge Bergan concurs in the result..

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

People Ex Rel. Harris v. Lindsay, 205 N.E.2d 312, 15 N.Y.2d 751, 257 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1665 (N.Y. 1965).

205 N.E.2d 312 (People Ex Rel. Harris v. Lindsay) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People ex rel. Haynes v. Artus
51 A.D.3d 1075 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People ex rel. Reed v. Travis
12 A.D.3d 1102 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People ex rel. Burr v. Clark
278 A.D.2d 938 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)