People Ex Rel. Harris v. Lindsay

New York Court of Appeals

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

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 14, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 205 N.E.2d 312 (People Ex Rel. Harris v. Lindsay) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

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

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..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 N.E.2d 312, 15 N.Y.2d 751, 257 N.Y.S.2d 176, 1965 N.Y. LEXIS 1665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-harris-v-lindsay-ny-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack