People ex rel. Magee v. Riley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Magee v. Riley

209 A.D.2d 734, 619 N.Y.S.2d 680

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 734 (People ex rel. Magee v. Riley) 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. Magee v. Riley, 209 A.D.2d 734, 619 N.Y.S.2d 680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), entered May 12, 1992, which denied the writ.

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

The petitioner contends that he was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because a Hearing Officer cut short his counsel’s cross examination of the complaining witness at his parole revocation hearing. Since the petitioner failed to raise this issue in his administrative appeal, the Supreme Court properly denied the extraordinary relief of habeas corpus (see, People ex rel. Keitt v McMann, 18 NY2d 257; People ex rel. Hall v LeFevre, 92 AD2d 956). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), entered May 12, 1992, which denied the writ.

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

The petitioner contends that he was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because a Hearing Officer cut short his counsel’s cross examination of the complaining witness at his parole revocation hearing. Since the petitioner failed to raise this issue in his administrative appeal, the Supreme Court properly denied the extraordinary relief of habeas corpus (see, People ex rel. Keitt v McMann, 18 NY2d 257; People ex rel. Hall v LeFevre, 92 AD2d 956). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 734, 619 N.Y.S.2d 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-magee-v-riley-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack