People ex rel. Pratt v. Bowen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Pratt v. Bowen

204 A.D.2d 838, 614 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5165

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

DecidedMay 12, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 838 (People ex rel. Pratt v. Bowen) 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. Pratt v. Bowen, 204 A.D.2d 838, 614 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5165 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Brown, J.), entered August 11, 1993 in Saratoga County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

The arguments asserted by petitioner in support of his claim for habeas corpus relief could have been raised on direct appeal or by way of a CPL article 440 motion. Therefore, such relief is not a proper remedy in this case and we see no reason to depart from traditional orderly procedure. Finally, habeas corpus relief is inappropriate because even if petitioner’s claim that he had been tried twice for the same crime in Family Court and County Court had merit, he would not be entitled to immediate release from custody. If Family Court’s judgment was annulled, petitioner would continue to be lawfully confined pursuant to County Court’s judgment.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., 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 (Brown, J.), entered August 11, 1993 in Saratoga County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

The arguments asserted by petitioner in support of his claim for habeas corpus relief could have been raised on direct appeal or by way of a CPL article 440 motion. Therefore, such relief is not a proper remedy in this case and we see no reason to depart from traditional orderly procedure. Finally, habeas corpus relief is inappropriate because even if petitioner’s claim that he had been tried twice for the same crime in Family Court and County Court had merit, he would not be entitled to immediate release from custody. If Family Court’s judgment was annulled, petitioner would continue to be lawfully confined pursuant to County Court’s judgment.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 838, 614 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-pratt-v-bowen-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack