People ex rel. Leventhal v. Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Leventhal v. Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction

213 A.D.2d 572, 624 N.Y.S.2d 913

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 572 (People ex rel. Leventhal v. Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction) 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. Leventhal v. Commissioner of the New York City Department of Correction, 213 A.D.2d 572, 624 N.Y.S.2d 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application for bail reduction upon Queens County Indictment No. 3190/93.

Upon the papers filed in support of the application and after [573]*573hearing oral argument in support of the application and in opposition thereto, it is

Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the Supreme Court, Queens County, was not an improvident exercise of discretion, and did not violate "constitutional or statutory standards” (People ex rel. Klein v Kruger, 25 NY2d 497, 499; see, People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson, 48 NY2d 230). Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application for bail reduction upon Queens County Indictment No. 3190/93.

Upon the papers filed in support of the application and after [573]*573hearing oral argument in support of the application and in opposition thereto, it is

Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the Supreme Court, Queens County, was not an improvident exercise of discretion, and did not violate "constitutional or statutory standards” (People ex rel. Klein v Kruger, 25 NY2d 497, 499; see, People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson, 48 NY2d 230). Thompson, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 572, 624 N.Y.S.2d 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-leventhal-v-commissioner-of-the-new-york-city-department-of-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack