People ex rel. Pannone v. Fay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Pannone v. Fay

16 A.D.2d 946, 229 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9275

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

DecidedJune 11, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 946 (People ex rel. Pannone v. Fay) 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. Pannone v. Fay, 16 A.D.2d 946, 229 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated December 5, 1961 and entered December 11, 1961, after a hearing, which dismissed the writ and remanded him to the custody of respondent. Order affirmed. The same arguments which are presented by relator in this proceeding were presented by him to the Appellate Division of the First Department on the appeal from the judgment of conviction, and that court passed on the merits of such arguments (People v. Pannone, 8 A D 2d 608). No reason appears why relator should have the remedy of habeas corpus in addition to the remedy of an appeal from the judgment of conviction (cf. People ex rel. Kern v. Silberglitt, 4 N Y 2d 59, 62). This court should not be called upon to deal anew with the very questions already passed upon by an appellate court (People ex rel. Baumgart v. Martin, 9 N Y 2d 351, cert, denied 368 U. S. 962; People v. Walker, 16 A D 2d 706). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, 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, dated December 5, 1961 and entered December 11, 1961, after a hearing, which dismissed the writ and remanded him to the custody of respondent. Order affirmed. The same arguments which are presented by relator in this proceeding were presented by him to the Appellate Division of the First Department on the appeal from the judgment of conviction, and that court passed on the merits of such arguments (People v. Pannone, 8 A D 2d 608). No reason appears why relator should have the remedy of habeas corpus in addition to the remedy of an appeal from the judgment of conviction (cf. People ex rel. Kern v. Silberglitt, 4 N Y 2d 59, 62). This court should not be called upon to deal anew with the very questions already passed upon by an appellate court (People ex rel. Baumgart v. Martin, 9 N Y 2d 351, cert, denied 368 U. S. 962; People v. Walker, 16 A D 2d 706). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 946, 229 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-pannone-v-fay-nyappdiv-1962.