People ex rel. Slade v. Follette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Slade v. Follette

26 A.D.2d 823, 274 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3427

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 26 A.D.2d 823 (People ex rel. Slade v. Follette) 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. Slade v. Follette, 26 A.D.2d 823, 274 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered January 19, 1966, which, after a hearing, dismissed the writ and remanded him to respondent’s custody. Judgment reversed on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of: (1) holding a further hearing; (2) assigning counsel to represent relator on such hearing; and (3) making a determination de novo on the basis of the proof adduced upon such hearing. No questions of fact were considered. It was error for the Special Term to have disregarded relator’s request that counsel be appointed to represent him and to have dismissed the writ without granting the request (People ex rel. Rodriguez v. La Vallee, 26 A D 2d 8; People ex rel. Barber v. Fay, 25 A D 2d 778; People ex rel. King v. Fay, 25 A D 2d 778). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, 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, relator appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered January 19, 1966, which, after a hearing, dismissed the writ and remanded him to respondent’s custody. Judgment reversed on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of: (1) holding a further hearing; (2) assigning counsel to represent relator on such hearing; and (3) making a determination de novo on the basis of the proof adduced upon such hearing. No questions of fact were considered. It was error for the Special Term to have disregarded relator’s request that counsel be appointed to represent him and to have dismissed the writ without granting the request (People ex rel. Rodriguez v. La Vallee, 26 A D 2d 8; People ex rel. Barber v. Fay, 25 A D 2d 778; People ex rel. King v. Fay, 25 A D 2d 778). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 823, 274 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-slade-v-follette-nyappdiv-1966.