You are here: / / BECAUSE THE COURT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO PLACE PETITIONER IN CUSTODY, THE...
,

BECAUSE THE COURT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO PLACE PETITIONER IN CUSTODY, THE COURT COULD NOT ORDER PETITIONER TO BE REMANDED TO RIKER’S ISLAND FOR A CPL ARTICLE 730 EXAMINATION; THE HABEAS CORPUS PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined Supreme Court was not authorized to remand the petitioner, Wei Li, to Riker’s Island for a CPL article 730 examination because defendant was charged with a misdemeanor and was not in custody. Therefore the habeas corpus petition should have been granted:

… [T]he references in CPL 730.20(2) and (3) to the defendant either having been theretofore released on bail or on his or her own recognizance, or being in custody, respectively, at the time a court issues an order of examination presuppose that a securing order has been issued upon arraignment as required by law (see CPL 170.10[7]; 210.15[6]; 510.10[1]). As such, a defendant’s previously determined, or statutorily mandated, liberty status—either release or in custody—cannot be changed because a CPL article 730 examination is ordered: if the defendant has been ordered released (or, as in the case of non-qualifying offenses, is required to be released), then the court is authorized (“may “) only to direct that the examination be conducted on an outpatient basis or, under certain circumstances, that the defendant be confined in a hospital until the examination is completed (see CPL 730.20[2]); if the defendant has been committed to custody, then he or she must remain in custody for the examination, even if he or she must be taken to a hospital for purposes of conducting same (see id. § 730.20[3]). A defendant who has been ordered released, or, as in Wei Li’s case, was statutorily entitled to release (see CPL 510.10[3]; 530.20[1]), cannot be jailed because the court ordered a CPL article 730 examination. People v Warden, 2021 NY Slip Op 03867, Second Dept 6-16-21

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT
THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A ONE-DAY ADJOURNMENT TO ALLOW HIS DAUGHTER TO TRAVEL TO COURT TO TESTIFY, COUPLED WITH THE RELATED GRANT OF THE PEOPLE’S REQUEST FOR A MISSING-WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS VIDEO EVIDENCE OF THE SLIP AND FALL, PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THE UNLAWFUL DRAIN PIPE WHICH WAS THE SOURCE OF THE ICE ON THE SIDEWALK, AND EXPERT EVIDENCE; DEFENDANTS’ MERE HOPE THAT DISCOVERY WOULD REVEAL EVIDENCE TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DID NOT SUPPORT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION AS PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT).
THE STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT WAS DE-ACCELERATED WITHIN THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION, HUSBAND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CREDIT FOR MORTGAGE PAYMENTS MADE BEFORE THE TERMINATION OF THE MARRIAGE WAS CONTEMPLATED (SECOND DEPT).
CLAIMANT ALLEGED SHE WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY TWO NAMED COUNSELORS FROM 1976 – 1978; THE CLAIM SUFFICIENTLY STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT (SECOND DEPT). ​
GRANDMOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE VISITATION ARRANGEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; MOTHER’S VIOLATION OF THE ORDER ALLOWING VISITATION BY GRANDMOTHER CONSTITUTED A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES (SECOND DEPT). ​
Judge’s Mistrial Order Precluded Retrial—Double Jeopardy

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

ALTHOUGH THE CHILD-SUPPORT CONTEMPT PROCEEDING WAS IN SUPREME COURT, NOT FAMILY... SUPREME COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE: WHETHER PLAINTIFF...