People ex rel. King v. Sullivan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. King v. Sullivan

128 A.D.2d 820, 513 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44510

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 128 A.D.2d 820 (People ex rel. King v. Sullivan) 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. Sullivan, 128 A.D.2d 820, 513 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44510 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Parlo, J.), dated December 18, 1985, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied. For over three years from the date of filing his notice of appeal, he made no attempt to contact his assigned appellate counsel or the clerk of this court, and such failure cannot be attributed to ignorance. The petitioner, by submitting several pro se motions, indicated he was fully capable of pursuing the status of his appeal. Thus, the petitioner cannot complain about the delay in reviewing his judgment of conviction. Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Parlo, J.), dated December 18, 1985, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus was properly denied. For over three years from the date of filing his notice of appeal, he made no attempt to contact his assigned appellate counsel or the clerk of this court, and such failure cannot be attributed to ignorance. The petitioner, by submitting several pro se motions, indicated he was fully capable of pursuing the status of his appeal. Thus, the petitioner cannot complain about the delay in reviewing his judgment of conviction. Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 820, 513 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-king-v-sullivan-nyappdiv-1987.