People ex rel. Overbaugh v. Zandt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Overbaugh v. Zandt

196 A.D.2d 927, 602 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8674

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 196 A.D.2d 927 (People ex rel. Overbaugh v. Zandt) 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. Overbaugh v. Zandt, 196 A.D.2d 927, 602 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8674 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Greene County (Lalor, J.), entered December 1, 1992, which dismissed petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, after a hearing.

Petitioner contends that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because the accusatory instrument with which he was charged was defective, denying County Court of jurisdiction. Given that this issue could have been raised on direct appeal or by way of a CPL article 440 motion, we find that habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy in this case (see, People ex rel. Woodard v Berry, 143 AD2d 457, 458, lv denied 73 NY2d 705; People ex rel. Rosado v Miles, 138 AD2d 808). Furthermore, we do not find that the allegations in the petition warrant departure from traditional orderly procedure (see, People ex rel. Grady v LeFevre, 152 AD2d 850, lv denied 75 NY2d 702).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Cardona, Mahoney and Casey, 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 County Court of Greene County (Lalor, J.), entered December 1, 1992, which dismissed petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, after a hearing.

Petitioner contends that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because the accusatory instrument with which he was charged was defective, denying County Court of jurisdiction. Given that this issue could have been raised on direct appeal or by way of a CPL article 440 motion, we find that habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy in this case (see, People ex rel. Woodard v Berry, 143 AD2d 457, 458, lv denied 73 NY2d 705; People ex rel. Rosado v Miles, 138 AD2d 808). Furthermore, we do not find that the allegations in the petition warrant departure from traditional orderly procedure (see, People ex rel. Grady v LeFevre, 152 AD2d 850, lv denied 75 NY2d 702).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Cardona, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.D.2d 927, 602 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-overbaugh-v-zandt-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack