People v. Sullivan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sullivan

32 A.D.2d 514, 300 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4303

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

DecidedApril 2, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 32 A.D.2d 514 (People v. Sullivan) 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 v. Sullivan, 32 A.D.2d 514, 300 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4303 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on October 5, 1967, denying petition for

writ of error coram nobis, unanimously reversed on -the law, and a hearing directed on the factual issues presented by the allegations of the petition, limited however to the alleged wrongful conduct of counsel in failing timely to file a notice of appeal. When the subject order was made, the controlling -law was as expressed in People v. Marchese (19 A D 2d 728, affd. 14 N Y 2d 695) such a dereliction on the part of retained counsel, -as distinguished from assigned counsel, would not provide a basis for coram nobis relief. Since the denial of a hearing herein, the Court of Appeals has spoken again (People v. Montgomery, [515]*51524 N Y 2d 130; People v. Callaway, 24 N Y 2d 127), and has eliminated the distinction. Accordingly, a hearing is indicated, but, since no basis is shown for the charge that appeal was also frustrated by prison authorities, it is to be limited in scope as indicated. Should it be found factually that failure to appeal was due to counsel’s misconduct, proceedings should he taken to vacate and reimpose sentence (People v. Hairston, 10 N Y 2d 92). Concur— Capozzoli, J. P., Markewich, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered on October 5, 1967, denying petition for

writ of error coram nobis, unanimously reversed on -the law, and a hearing directed on the factual issues presented by the allegations of the petition, limited however to the alleged wrongful conduct of counsel in failing timely to file a notice of appeal. When the subject order was made, the controlling -law was as expressed in People v. Marchese (19 A D 2d 728, affd. 14 N Y 2d 695) such a dereliction on the part of retained counsel, -as distinguished from assigned counsel, would not provide a basis for coram nobis relief. Since the denial of a hearing herein, the Court of Appeals has spoken again (People v. Montgomery, [515]*51524 N Y 2d 130; People v. Callaway, 24 N Y 2d 127), and has eliminated the distinction. Accordingly, a hearing is indicated, but, since no basis is shown for the charge that appeal was also frustrated by prison authorities, it is to be limited in scope as indicated. Should it be found factually that failure to appeal was due to counsel’s misconduct, proceedings should he taken to vacate and reimpose sentence (People v. Hairston, 10 N Y 2d 92). Concur— Capozzoli, J. P., Markewich, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 514, 300 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sullivan-nyappdiv-1969.