People ex rel. King v. Fay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. King v. Fay

25 A.D.2d 778, 269 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4492

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

DecidedApril 18, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 778 (People ex rel. King 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. King v. Fay, 25 A.D.2d 778, 269 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4492 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

On the court’s own motion, its decision dated April 11, 1966 is. amended to read as follows : In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered November 24,1964, which, after a hearing, dismissed the writ and remanded relator to custody. Judgment reversed on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the court below for the purpose of: (1) holding a further hearing; (2) assigning counsel to represent' relator on such hearing; and (3) making a determination de nono on the basis of the proof adduced upon such hearing. No questions of fact were considered. We believe it was error for the court below to disregard relator’s request that counsel be appointed to represent him and to dismiss the writ without granting that request [779]*779(see People v. Hughes, 15 N Y 2d 172).

Brennan, Acting P. J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

On the court’s own motion, its decision dated April 11, 1966 is. amended to read as follows : In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered November 24,1964, which, after a hearing, dismissed the writ and remanded relator to custody. Judgment reversed on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the court below for the purpose of: (1) holding a further hearing; (2) assigning counsel to represent' relator on such hearing; and (3) making a determination de nono on the basis of the proof adduced upon such hearing. No questions of fact were considered. We believe it was error for the court below to disregard relator’s request that counsel be appointed to represent him and to dismiss the writ without granting that request [779]*779(see People v. Hughes, 15 N Y 2d 172).

Brennan, Acting P. J., Hill, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 778, 269 N.Y.S.2d 535, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-king-v-fay-nyappdiv-1966.