Willis v. Von Holden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Willis v. Von Holden

67 A.D.2d 810, 413 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10455

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 67 A.D.2d 810 (Willis v. Von Holden) 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

Willis v. Von Holden, 67 A.D.2d 810, 413 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10455 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs, to petitioner; cross appeal dismissed. Memorandum: Respondents’ assertion on appeal that the court lacks jurisdiction in this proceeding is without merit. Not only does the answer to the petition admit service upon the Department of Mental Hygiene, but the jurisdictional objection recited in paragraph "second” of the answer relates only to respondents Welton and Von Holden and not to the department. Moreover, Welton and Von Holden are named in this proceeding only in their representative capacities and not individually (cf. Foster v McMorran, 33 AD2d 978). We affirm the judgment on the basis that petitioner’s resignation was not voluntarily made. It resulted directly from the coercive manner and circumstances in which his interrogation was conducted. Thus viewed, it is unnecessary to address the separate issue of whether the denial of an opportunity to obtain the advice of an attorney constituted a denial of due process. Finally, petitioner’s cross appeal must be dismissed inasmuch as no appeal may be taken from the language of an opinion or decision (CPLR 5701). (Appeals from judgment of Oneida Supreme Court — art 78.) Present — Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Dillon, Hancock, Jr., and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs, to petitioner; cross appeal dismissed. Memorandum: Respondents’ assertion on appeal that the court lacks jurisdiction in this proceeding is without merit. Not only does the answer to the petition admit service upon the Department of Mental Hygiene, but the jurisdictional objection recited in paragraph "second” of the answer relates only to respondents Welton and Von Holden and not to the department. Moreover, Welton and Von Holden are named in this proceeding only in their representative capacities and not individually (cf. Foster v McMorran, 33 AD2d 978). We affirm the judgment on the basis that petitioner’s resignation was not voluntarily made. It resulted directly from the coercive manner and circumstances in which his interrogation was conducted. Thus viewed, it is unnecessary to address the separate issue of whether the denial of an opportunity to obtain the advice of an attorney constituted a denial of due process. Finally, petitioner’s cross appeal must be dismissed inasmuch as no appeal may be taken from the language of an opinion or decision (CPLR 5701). (Appeals from judgment of Oneida Supreme Court — art 78.) Present — Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Dillon, Hancock, Jr., and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 810, 413 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willis-v-von-holden-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack