People ex rel. Ruppert v. Hoy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Ruppert v. Hoy

25 A.D.2d 884, 270 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4121

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

DecidedMay 24, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 884 (People ex rel. Ruppert v. Hoy) 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. Ruppert v. Hoy, 25 A.D.2d 884, 270 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the relator appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered May 17, 1966, dismissing the writ and remanding him to custody. Judgment affirmed, without costs. While at the time of the hearing upon the writ the relator had not been indicted, it is undisputed that after the making of the order appealed from the relator was indicted and that he is now in custody by virtue of such subsequent indictment. Under the circumstances the order must be affirmed. This affirmance, however, is without prejudice to relator’s right to a determination, by the court in which the indictment has been filed, of the voluntariness of any confession in accordance with the procedure now prescribed by statute (Code Crim. Pro., §§ 813-f-813-i, L. 1965, ch. 846; cf. People v. Huntley, 15 N Y 2d 72).

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the relator appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered May 17, 1966, dismissing the writ and remanding him to custody. Judgment affirmed, without costs. While at the time of the hearing upon the writ the relator had not been indicted, it is undisputed that after the making of the order appealed from the relator was indicted and that he is now in custody by virtue of such subsequent indictment. Under the circumstances the order must be affirmed. This affirmance, however, is without prejudice to relator’s right to a determination, by the court in which the indictment has been filed, of the voluntariness of any confession in accordance with the procedure now prescribed by statute (Code Crim. Pro., §§ 813-f-813-i, L. 1965, ch. 846; cf. People v. Huntley, 15 N Y 2d 72).

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 884, 270 N.Y.S.2d 975, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-ruppert-v-hoy-nyappdiv-1966.