People ex rel. Mathis v. Hastings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Mathis v. Hastings

119 A.D.2d 844, 501 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55801

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

DecidedApril 28, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 119 A.D.2d 844 (People ex rel. Mathis v. Hastings) 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. Mathis v. Hastings, 119 A.D.2d 844, 501 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Gurahian, J.), dated May 22, 1981, which dismissed the petition.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In his petition for habeas corpus relief, the petitioner alleged that the search and seizure upon which his arrest was premised was illegal. Subsequent to the date of the judgment appealed from, a suppression hearing and trial were conducted. Ultimately, the petitioner’s motion to suppress evidence was denied and he was convicted following trial. Thereafter, the conviction was affirmed by this court (People v Mathis, 118 AD2d 594), which explicitly rejected the claim that the search and seizure were illegal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment dismissing the petition. Rubin, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, 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, Dutchess County (Gurahian, J.), dated May 22, 1981, which dismissed the petition.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In his petition for habeas corpus relief, the petitioner alleged that the search and seizure upon which his arrest was premised was illegal. Subsequent to the date of the judgment appealed from, a suppression hearing and trial were conducted. Ultimately, the petitioner’s motion to suppress evidence was denied and he was convicted following trial. Thereafter, the conviction was affirmed by this court (People v Mathis, 118 AD2d 594), which explicitly rejected the claim that the search and seizure were illegal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment dismissing the petition. Rubin, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 844, 501 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-mathis-v-hastings-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack