People ex rel. Rodriguez v. Miller

2017 NY Slip Op 4004, 150 A.D.3d 1500, 52 N.Y.S.3d 237
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 18, 2017
Docket523082
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4004 (People ex rel. Rodriguez v. Miller) 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. Rodriguez v. Miller, 2017 NY Slip Op 4004, 150 A.D.3d 1500, 52 N.Y.S.3d 237 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McKeighan, J.), entered April 15, 2016 in Washington County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner is currently serving two concurrent five-year prison terms based on two convictions of robbery in the first degree (People v Rodriguez, 144 AD3d 498 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1188 [2017]). Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus claiming that he should be transferred to a Comprehensive Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment program and that he should not be housed in a maximum security facility (see generally Penal Law § 60.04 [6]; 7 NYCRR 1950.2). * Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and petitioner now appeals.

Even if the issues raised by petitioner in his petition were *1501 substantiated and determined to have merit, he would not be entitled to immediate release from prison and, therefore, a writ of habeas corpus could not be granted (see People ex rel. Kaplan v Commissioner of Correction of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 648, 649 [1983]; People ex rel. Vickery v Griffin, 125 AD3d 1018, 1019 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 908 [2015]; People ex rel. White v Smith, 120 AD3d 1469, 1470 [2014]). Accordingly, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition (see CPLR 7003 [a]).

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Clark, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

*

Respondent has submitted a letter indicating that it was not served and did not appear in Supreme Court.

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

Related

People, ex rel. DeFreitas v. Callado
2019 NY Slip Op 4073 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People ex rel. D'Amico v. Lilley
2017 NY Slip Op 6574 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 4004, 150 A.D.3d 1500, 52 N.Y.S.3d 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-rodriguez-v-miller-nyappdiv-2017.