People ex rel. Pritchard v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Pritchard v. Harris

82 A.D.2d 842, 439 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14523

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

DecidedJune 8, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 82 A.D.2d 842 (People ex rel. Pritchard v. Harris) 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. Pritchard v. Harris, 82 A.D.2d 842, 439 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel recalculation of petitioner’s sentence in accordance with subdivision 2 of section 70.25 of the Penal Law, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Quinn, J.), dated December 17,1979, which dismissed his petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner seeks to utilize this article 78 proceeding to contest the Trial Judge’s finding that the crimes of robbery and assault were separate and distinct acts under the facts of the case. Prior to this proceeding, however, petitioner took a direct appeal from his judgment of conviction in which he challenged the propriety of his sentence under section 70.30 of the Penal Law (see People v Pritchard, 55 AD2d 661). There was no valid reason for petitioner not raising the claims he asserts here on his prior appeal and, as stated in Matter of Banks v Blyn (72 AD2d 512), “The extraordinary remedies provided by CPLR article 78 are not to be used as substitutes for appellate review when, as here, the latter would be available and adequate.” Hopkins, J.P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel recalculation of petitioner’s sentence in accordance with subdivision 2 of section 70.25 of the Penal Law, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Quinn, J.), dated December 17,1979, which dismissed his petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner seeks to utilize this article 78 proceeding to contest the Trial Judge’s finding that the crimes of robbery and assault were separate and distinct acts under the facts of the case. Prior to this proceeding, however, petitioner took a direct appeal from his judgment of conviction in which he challenged the propriety of his sentence under section 70.30 of the Penal Law (see People v Pritchard, 55 AD2d 661). There was no valid reason for petitioner not raising the claims he asserts here on his prior appeal and, as stated in Matter of Banks v Blyn (72 AD2d 512), “The extraordinary remedies provided by CPLR article 78 are not to be used as substitutes for appellate review when, as here, the latter would be available and adequate.” Hopkins, J.P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.2d 842, 439 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-pritchard-v-harris-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack