People ex rel. Medina v. Senkowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Medina v. Senkowski

265 A.D.2d 779, 698 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10949

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 265 A.D.2d 779 (People ex rel. Medina v. Senkowski) 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. Medina v. Senkowski, 265 A.D.2d 779, 698 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10949 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered January 8, 1999 in Clinton County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus claiming to be illegally detained at Clinton County Correctional Facility in Clinton County. Supreme Court declined to issue a writ of habeas corpus as it was unable to identify the precise issue petitioner was attempting to raise as the basis for his illegal detention after reviewing the petition and illegible exhibit. The petition was, accordingly, dismissed without prejudice. Inasmuch as no mandate was attached to the petition (see, CPLR 7002 [c] [1]) and the petition failed to detail how the detention was illegal (see, CPLR 7002 [c] [4]), the petition was appropriately dismissed (People ex rel. Boyd v LeFevre, 92 AD2d 1042, lv denied 59 NY2d 604). Furthermore, while petitioner contends that Supreme Court should have inquired into the reasons for his alleged improper imprisonment by ordering the original mandate, Supreme Court is bound by the papers before it (see, People ex rel. Warren v Wallack, 7 AD2d 941).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Mugglin, 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

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered January 8, 1999 in Clinton County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus claiming to be illegally detained at Clinton County Correctional Facility in Clinton County. Supreme Court declined to issue a writ of habeas corpus as it was unable to identify the precise issue petitioner was attempting to raise as the basis for his illegal detention after reviewing the petition and illegible exhibit. The petition was, accordingly, dismissed without prejudice. Inasmuch as no mandate was attached to the petition (see, CPLR 7002 [c] [1]) and the petition failed to detail how the detention was illegal (see, CPLR 7002 [c] [4]), the petition was appropriately dismissed (People ex rel. Boyd v LeFevre, 92 AD2d 1042, lv denied 59 NY2d 604). Furthermore, while petitioner contends that Supreme Court should have inquired into the reasons for his alleged improper imprisonment by ordering the original mandate, Supreme Court is bound by the papers before it (see, People ex rel. Warren v Wallack, 7 AD2d 941).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 779, 698 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-medina-v-senkowski-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack