People ex rel. Landy v. Rock

61 A.D.3d 1198, 875 N.Y.S.2d 923
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 16, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 61 A.D.3d 1198 (People ex rel. Landy v. Rock) 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. Landy v. Rock, 61 A.D.3d 1198, 875 N.Y.S.2d 923 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Pritzker, J.), entered May 20, 2008 in Washington County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner, who is serving an aggregate prison term of 20 years to life following his 2003 conviction of, among other things, burglary in the first degree, commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, lack of probable cause for his arrest and the denial of his right to a speedy trial. Petitioner’s direct appeal and the denial of his CPL article 440 motion to vacate the judgment of conviction currently are pending in the First Department.

Habeas corpus relief does not lie where, as here, the arguments advanced “would be properly raised by way of a CPL article 440 motion or on [a] pending appeal from the judgment of conviction” (People ex rel. Cano v Kuhlmann, 278 AD2d 632, 632 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 707 [2001]; see People ex rel. Malik v State of New York, 58 AD3d 1042, 1043 [2009]; People ex rel. Woodard v Lape, 58 AD3d 903, 904 [2009]). Further, our review of the record reveals no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a departure from traditional orderly procedure (see People ex rel. Moore v Connolly, 56 AD3d 847, 848 [2008]; People ex rel. Hunter v Buffardi, 15 AD3d 736 [2005]). Accordingly, Supreme Court’s judgment is affirmed.

Mercure, J.E, Rose, Kane, Malone Jr. and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

People v. LaClair
2018 NY Slip Op 3880 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People ex rel. Miller v. Rock
109 A.D.3d 1062 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People ex rel. Karen FF. v. Ulster County Department of Social Services
79 A.D.3d 1187 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People ex rel. Cisson v. Artus
78 A.D.3d 1392 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 A.D.3d 1198, 875 N.Y.S.2d 923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-landy-v-rock-nyappdiv-2009.