Truman v. County Court

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Truman v. County Court

20 A.D.2d 846, 247 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4152

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

DecidedMarch 27, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 846 (Truman v. County Court) 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

Truman v. County Court, 20 A.D.2d 846, 247 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner moves for an order in the nature of prohibition to restrain respondents from continuing to assume jurisdiction in respect to indictments returned against Mm in the Supreme Court and thereafter transferred for disposition to the County Court of Tompkins County. Prior motions addressed to these courts respectively to dismiss the indictments upon the same grounds now urged have been denied. In the circumstances presented the remedy of prohibition is not available to petitioner. (Duchin v. Peterson, 12 A D 2d 622; Kenler v. Murtagh, 12 A D 2d 662; Matter of Marra v. County Ct., 17 A D 2d 902.) Our denial of the relief sought is not to be taken, however, as sanctioning the informal conference in which several members of the Grand Jury and law-enforcement officials participated at the instance of the District Attorney. Motion denied and petition dismissed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

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

Petitioner moves for an order in the nature of prohibition to restrain respondents from continuing to assume jurisdiction in respect to indictments returned against Mm in the Supreme Court and thereafter transferred for disposition to the County Court of Tompkins County. Prior motions addressed to these courts respectively to dismiss the indictments upon the same grounds now urged have been denied. In the circumstances presented the remedy of prohibition is not available to petitioner. (Duchin v. Peterson, 12 A D 2d 622; Kenler v. Murtagh, 12 A D 2d 662; Matter of Marra v. County Ct., 17 A D 2d 902.) Our denial of the relief sought is not to be taken, however, as sanctioning the informal conference in which several members of the Grand Jury and law-enforcement officials participated at the instance of the District Attorney. Motion denied and petition dismissed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 846, 247 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/truman-v-county-court-nyappdiv-1964.