People ex rel. Van Stuyvesant v. Eisenschmidt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Van Stuyvesant v. Eisenschmidt

302 A.D.2d 950, 754 N.Y.S.2d 796, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 957

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 302 A.D.2d 950 (People ex rel. Van Stuyvesant v. Eisenschmidt) 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. Van Stuyvesant v. Eisenschmidt, 302 A.D.2d 950, 754 N.Y.S.2d 796, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 957 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Corning, J.), entered November 28, 2001, which dismissed the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner commenced this special proceeding by order to show cause and petition. The court directed petitioner to serve the Attorney General with the order to show cause and petition by regular mail before October 11, 2001. Although the affidavit of service of petitioner indicates that he served respondent on October 9, 2001 (see CPLR 7005), he failed to serve the Attorney General as directed by the court and required by CPLR 2214 (d). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Corning, J.), entered November 28, 2001, which dismissed the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner commenced this special proceeding by order to show cause and petition. The court directed petitioner to serve the Attorney General with the order to show cause and petition by regular mail before October 11, 2001. Although the affidavit of service of petitioner indicates that he served respondent on October 9, 2001 (see CPLR 7005), he failed to serve the Attorney General as directed by the court and required by CPLR 2214 (d). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 950, 754 N.Y.S.2d 796, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-van-stuyvesant-v-eisenschmidt-nyappdiv-2003.