People ex rel. Patterson v. Ercole
This text of 60 A.D.3d 710 (People ex rel. Patterson v. Ercole) 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.
Opinion
— In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated January 31, 2008, which, without a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The appellant’s contention that a federal detention warrant compelling him to remain in custody has lapsed is based upon material dehors the record (see People ex rel. Roache v Connell, 31 AD3d 1199 [2006]). Moreover, habeas corpus is an inappropriate remedy for addressing the appellant’s other contention that a good time allowance was improperly withheld from him (see [711]*711People ex rel. Barnes v Allard, 25 AD3d 893, 894 [2006]; People ex rel. Richardson v West, 24 AD3d 996, 997 [2005]). Accordingly, the appellant failed to establish that he would be entitled to an immediate release from custody if a writ of habeas corpus were granted (see People ex rel. Kaplan v Commissioner of Correction of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 648 [1983]; People ex rel. DeFlumer v Strack, 212 AD2d 555 [1995]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
60 A.D.3d 710, 875 N.Y.S.2d 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-patterson-v-ercole-nyappdiv-2009.