People ex rel. Holliman v. Conboy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Holliman v. Conboy

37 A.D.2d 1034, 326 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2935

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1971

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.2d 1034 (People ex rel. Holliman v. Conboy) 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. Holliman v. Conboy, 37 A.D.2d 1034, 326 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2935 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered March 22, 1971 in Washington 'County, which dis- - missed a writ of habeas corpus after a hearing. Upon the hearing, the relator testified that he was not represented by counsel. The court, on behalf of the respondent, admitted in evidence an affidavit by the sentencing Justice of the Peace, to which timely objection was taken. It was error to admit such affidavit as the relator was entitled to be confronted and, if so advised, cross-examine the said Justice of the Peace. Upon such remanding, the court should carefully consider whether the present sentence is legal. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and matter remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Herlihy, P. J., 'Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered March 22, 1971 in Washington 'County, which dis- - missed a writ of habeas corpus after a hearing. Upon the hearing, the relator testified that he was not represented by counsel. The court, on behalf of the respondent, admitted in evidence an affidavit by the sentencing Justice of the Peace, to which timely objection was taken. It was error to admit such affidavit as the relator was entitled to be confronted and, if so advised, cross-examine the said Justice of the Peace. Upon such remanding, the court should carefully consider whether the present sentence is legal. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and matter remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Herlihy, P. J., 'Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 1034, 326 N.Y.S.2d 54, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-holliman-v-conboy-nyappdiv-1971.