People ex rel. Lombardi v. Follette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Lombardi v. Follette

27 A.D.2d 756, 279 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4765

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 756 (People ex rel. Lombardi v. Follette) 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. Lombardi v. Follette, 27 A.D.2d 756, 279 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated June 21, 1966, dismissing a writ of habeas corpus, reversed, on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of (a) holding a hearing de novo; (b) assigning counsel to represent relator on such hearing; and (e) making a determination de novo on the merits. No questions of fact have been considered. Respondent states in his brief that he does not object to this disposition for the reason that relator’s request at Special Term for assignment of counsel was denied over his objection. We have held that assignment of counsel is necessary in cases such as this (People ex rel. Slade v. Follette, 26 A D 2d 823). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated June 21, 1966, dismissing a writ of habeas corpus, reversed, on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of (a) holding a hearing de novo; (b) assigning counsel to represent relator on such hearing; and (e) making a determination de novo on the merits. No questions of fact have been considered. Respondent states in his brief that he does not object to this disposition for the reason that relator’s request at Special Term for assignment of counsel was denied over his objection. We have held that assignment of counsel is necessary in cases such as this (People ex rel. Slade v. Follette, 26 A D 2d 823). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 756, 279 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-lombardi-v-follette-nyappdiv-1967.