People ex rel. Metesky v. Johnston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Metesky v. Johnston

25 A.D.2d 786, 271 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4456

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

DecidedApril 25, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 786 (People ex rel. Metesky v. Johnston) 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. Metesky v. Johnston, 25 A.D.2d 786, 271 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered February 26, 1964, which dismissed the writ after a hearing and remanded him to custody. Order reversed on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for the purpose of (a) holding a further hearing, and (b) making a determination de novo on the basis of the proof adduced upon such hearing. No question's of fact have been considered. In our opinion, the relator was not given an opportunity to present evidence in support of his petition or to cross-examine respondent’s medical witness (cf. People ex rel Cole v. Johnston, 22 A D 2d 893).

Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Hopkins .and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered February 26, 1964, which dismissed the writ after a hearing and remanded him to custody. Order reversed on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for the purpose of (a) holding a further hearing, and (b) making a determination de novo on the basis of the proof adduced upon such hearing. No question's of fact have been considered. In our opinion, the relator was not given an opportunity to present evidence in support of his petition or to cross-examine respondent’s medical witness (cf. People ex rel Cole v. Johnston, 22 A D 2d 893).

Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Hopkins .and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 786, 271 N.Y.S.2d 180, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-metesky-v-johnston-nyappdiv-1966.