You are here: / / Attorney in Assigned Counsel Program Did Not Have Standing To Sue County...
,

Attorney in Assigned Counsel Program Did Not Have Standing To Sue County for More Pay

An attorney who participated in Onondaga County’s Assigned Counsel Program (ACP) sued the county and the program for money damages, claiming he was entitled to more pay for the legal work he had done, and for a declaratory judgment finding that the AVP manual was a nullity because the regulations in the manual usurped the authority of judges to fix assigned-counsel compensation. The Court of Appeals determined the attorney did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. Roulan v County of Onondaga…, No 62, CtApp, 4-30- 13

 

You might also like
Good Time Credit Should Be Deducted From the Two-Year Sentence Cap Imposed Under Penal Law 70.30 (2) (b), Not from the Longer Aggregate Term to Which the Two-Year Statutory Cap Was Applied
BEFORE ADMITTING NON-EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT IN A VIDEO, THE BASIS SHOULD BE DETERMINED OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, THE PARTY OFFERING THE WITNESS MUST DEMONSTRATE THE RELIABILITY OF THE WITNESS, AND THE NEED FOR THE TESTIMONY MUST BE DEMONSTRATED; IN ADDITION, A THOROUGH RECORD MUST BE CREATED AND THE JURY SHOULD BE INSTRUCTED THEY ARE FREE TO REJECT THE NON-EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION (CT APP). ​
DEFENDANT, A NONCITIZEN, WAS TOLD DURING HIS PLEA COLLOQUY THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL ON THE DEPORTATION-ELIGIBLE B MISDEMEANOR; WHILE THE LEAVE APPLICATION WAS PENDING THE LAW WAS CHANGED TO AFFORD A PERSON IN DEFENDANT’S POSITION THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL; THE MAJORITY UPHELD THE GUILTY PLEA; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE PLEA SHOULD NOT STAND (CT APP).
A Sex Offender Cannot Be Confined to a Treatment Facility as Part of “Strict and Intensive Supervision” under Article 10
ELECTION LAW 3-222 WHICH PROHIBITS DISCLOSURE OF VOTED BALLOTS FOR TWO YEARS AFTER AN ELECTION APPLIES BOTH TO PAPER BALLOTS AND ELECTRONIC BALLOTS (CT APP).
THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY TO DECEDENT’S CHILDREN WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY; THE TRANSFER WAS COMPENSATION FOR CARE, NOT A GIFT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TRANSFER WAS A GIFT AND THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DID NOT AUTHORIZE GIFTS (CT APP). ​
TOWN PROPERLY DISSOLVED THE EXISTING FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CREATED TWO NEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS (CT APP).
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL COULD NOT HAVE AFFECTED THE PROCEEDINGS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Legal Criteria for Determining Visitation Rights of Incarcerated Father Cla... Sentencing Court Need Not Inform Defendant of Possible Consequences of Violating...