People ex rel. Szostak v. Ferreza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Szostak v. Ferreza

41 A.D.2d 546, 339 N.Y.S.2d 930, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5347

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

DecidedJanuary 10, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 41 A.D.2d 546 (People ex rel. Szostak v. Ferreza) 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. Szostak v. Ferreza, 41 A.D.2d 546, 339 N.Y.S.2d 930, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding concerning custody of a grandchild of respondents in the proceeding, respondent Rudolph Ferreza appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 2, 1973, which denied his motion for an order releasing him from incarceration in the civil jail under a commitment order of the same court, dated November 3, 1972 and entered December 22, 1972. Order modified, in the exercise of discretion, by striking therefrom the words that the motion is “denied in all respects” and substituting therefor a provision that the motion is granted to the extent of directing that the punishment of .incarceration is reduced to the time served until now and that said respondent shall be ■ released from incarceration forthwith. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. The findings of fact below, viz., that said [547]*547respondent violated the prior specific admonitions of the Special. Term . to produce the child, are affirmed. In our opinion, a proper exercise of discretion dictates that appellant should he released from incarceration at this time. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Latham, Gulotta 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 concerning custody of a grandchild of respondents in the proceeding, respondent Rudolph Ferreza appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 2, 1973, which denied his motion for an order releasing him from incarceration in the civil jail under a commitment order of the same court, dated November 3, 1972 and entered December 22, 1972. Order modified, in the exercise of discretion, by striking therefrom the words that the motion is “denied in all respects” and substituting therefor a provision that the motion is granted to the extent of directing that the punishment of .incarceration is reduced to the time served until now and that said respondent shall be ■ released from incarceration forthwith. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs. The findings of fact below, viz., that said [547]*547respondent violated the prior specific admonitions of the Special. Term . to produce the child, are affirmed. In our opinion, a proper exercise of discretion dictates that appellant should he released from incarceration at this time. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Latham, Gulotta and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 A.D.2d 546, 339 N.Y.S.2d 930, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-szostak-v-ferreza-nyappdiv-1973.