People ex rel. Kearney v. Bartlett

131 A.D.3d 1313, 16 N.Y.S.3d 357
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 17, 2015
Docket520205
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 131 A.D.3d 1313 (People ex rel. Kearney v. Bartlett) 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. Kearney v. Bartlett, 131 A.D.3d 1313, 16 N.Y.S.3d 357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Nichols, J.), entered September 16, 2014 in Columbia County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing, and (2) from a judgment of said court, entered November 25, 2014, which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner attempted to commence this habeas corpus proceeding seeking his immediate release from jail following his arrest on alleged parole violations. Supreme Court denied *1314 the application based upon the failure of the petition to be verified in accordance with CPLR 7002 (c). Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. These appeals ensued.

Even if the deficiencies in petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus could be overlooked, the record establishes that, although petitioner is incarerated, he is no longer in respondent’s custody and, therefore, the appeal from this judgment has been rendered moot and must be dismissed (see e.g. People ex rel. Phillips v LaClair, 84 AD3d 1606, 1606 [2011]). To the extent that petitioner challenges the denial of his motion for reconsideration, we note that such motion was one for leave to reargue, as he alleged no new facts or demonstrated any change in the law (see People ex rel. Hinton v Graham, 66 AD3d 1402, 1402-1403 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 934 [2010]; Matter of Hill v Goord, 275 AD2d 492, 493 [2000]). As no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for leave to reargue, that appeal must be dismissed (see id.).

Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, without costs.

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

Related

Matter of Griffin-Robinson v. New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision
2024 NY Slip Op 02117 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
People ex rel. Williams v. Keyser
2021 NY Slip Op 03234 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People ex rel. Ross v. Stanford
2020 NY Slip Op 3581 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People ex rel. Gentry v. Apple
2019 NY Slip Op 6655 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. LaClair
2018 NY Slip Op 3880 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People ex rel. Chaney v. Dagostino
137 A.D.3d 1436 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 A.D.3d 1313, 16 N.Y.S.3d 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-kearney-v-bartlett-nyappdiv-2015.