You are here: / / HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS STEMMING FROM THE DENIAL OF BAIL IN AN ATTEMPTED...

HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS STEMMING FROM THE DENIAL OF BAIL IN AN ATTEMPTED MURDER CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, determined the two habeas corpus petitions, stemming from the denial of bail in an attempted murder case, were properly denied. The petitioner was charged with the attempted murder of her husband. It was petitioner's cousin who actually attacked petitioner's husband. The cousin had been convicted after trial before the judge who twice denied petitioner's bail applications, resulting in the two habeas corpus petition's before the First Department:

… [W]e find that the habeas court in the first proceeding correctly found that Justice Farber did not abuse his discretion in denying petitioner's initial bail application. The denial of bail was amply supported by the seriousness of the charges including attempted murder, the potential sentence of at least 5 years and up to 25 years in prison for the class B violent felonies of attempted murder in the second degree or first-degree burglary … , as well as the strength of the evidence. Notably, Justice Farber had just presided over Nolan's trial for carrying out the plot allegedly orchestrated by petitioner … .

To the extent [petitioner] argues that the court improperly focused on the seriousness of the charges and the sentencing exposure to the exclusion of other factors, the court's failure to explicitly address each statutory factor or every specific argument raised by the parties on the record does not establish that the court abused its discretion. The court implicitly based its ruling on all of the parties' arguments … . * * *

“Petitioner's position, if accepted, would mandate that bail be granted in every case in which the accused has the financial resources to offer private security and monitoring, thereby depriving the court of its discretion to grant or deny bail on consideration of the factors enumerated in CPL 510.30(2)(a). While petitioner claims that her security package is foolproof and trumps all other factors, the fact remains that no ad hoc arrangement based on keeping a defendant in her private home under the watch of a security firm that she hired could be as secure as remand” … . Matter of State of NY ex rel. Fischetti v Brann, 2018 NY Slip Op 06220, First Dept 9-25-18

CRIMINAL LAW (HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS STEMMING FROM THE DENIAL OF BAIL IN AN ATTEMPTED MURDER CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/HABEAS CORPUS (HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS STEMMING FROM THE DENIAL OF BAIL IN AN ATTEMPTED MURDER CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/BAIL  (HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS STEMMING FROM THE DENIAL OF BAIL IN AN ATTEMPTED MURDER CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
MOTION TO VACATE THE EXECUTED WARRANT OF EVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED.
DEFENDANT DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDED THE RIGHT TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY AND AN AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY TENANT FOR CLAIMS ARISING FROM TENANT’S NEGLIGENCE.
DOCTRINE OF DEFINITENESS WAS PROPERLY NOT APPLIED, DOLLAR-AMOUNT OF THE FEE AT ISSUE COULD BE DETERMINED BY INDUSTRY PRACTICE.
THE BANKRUPTCY EXCEPTION TO THE INSURED VS INSURED EXCLUSION IN THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY POLICY APPLIED TO THE CREDITOR TRUST WHICH WAS SET UP TO PURSUE THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE’S LEGAL CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF UNSECURED CREDITORS; THE CREDIT TRUST SUED THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE INSURED ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT AN ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED UPON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED ACQUITTAL ON THE REMAINING CHARGES IS REVERSIBLE ERROR, DESPITE THE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (FIRST DEPT).
COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THE DELIVERY OF FUEL OIL MIXED WITH WASTE OIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, THE COMPLAINTS STATED BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY CAUSES OF ACTION.
Demand for Jury Trial Properly Struck/Rescission Was Core of Action and Counterclaim
DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT WAIVE HIS CLIENT’S RIGHT TO HAVE HIM ATTEND THE LINEUP IDENTIFICATION BY SENDING HIS PARALEGAL, WHO WAS TURNED AWAY; DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD HIS PRESENCE WAS REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).

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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NOTICE PURPORTING TO DISSOLVE A PARTNERSHIP WAS A NULLITY BECAUSE IT DID NOT... LEGAL DOCUMENTS, BILLS FOR LEGAL SERVICES AND AN INSURER’S FILE PROTECTED...