Blake v. Hogan
| Decision Date | 02 June 1969 |
| Citation | 250 N.E.2d 568,303 N.Y.S.2d 505,25 N.Y.2d 747 |
| Parties | , 250 N.E.2d 568 In the Matter of James BLAKE and James P. Edstrom, Appellants, v. Frank S. HOGAN, District Attorney for New York County, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
John M. Armentano, Mineola, for appellants.
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty. (Alan Scribner and Michael R. Juviler, New York City, of counsel) for respondents.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs. The record, in our view, supports the conclusion--reached by the Appellate Division when it denied the petitioners-appellants' motion in the criminal case to dismiss the indictment--that there had been no denial of the constitutional right to a speedy trial in view of the fact that they had acquiesced in the delay complained of. On the procedural issue, we do not believe that the extraordinary remedy of prohibition is proper under the circumstances of this case.
Order affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. County Court of Erie County
...of conviction. Although not all constitutional issues are cognizable by way of prohibition (see, e. g., Matter of Blake v. Hogan, 25 N.Y.2d 747, 303 N.Y.S.2d 505, 250 N.E.2d 568 [holding that the writ does not lie where the claim is a denial of the right to a speedy trial]; Matter of Kraeme......
-
Carey v. Kitson
...application. Although not all constitutional issues are reviewable by way of prohibition (see, e.g., Matter of Blake v Hogan, 25 NY2d 747, 748 [303 N.Y.S.2d 505, 250 N.E.2d 568] ), the Court of Appeals has found prohibition to lie where, as here, the proceeding is based upon petitioner's as......
-
Gouiran Holdings, Inc. v. Miller
...upon which its application is based and to have it reviewed by a court of competent jurisdiction. See, e.g.: Blake v. Hogan, 25 N.Y.2d 747, 303 N.Y.S.2d 505, 250 N.E.2d 568 [1969] [where, prior to seeking prohibition, the defendant in a criminal case made a speedy trial motion to dismiss th......
-
La Rocca v. Lane
...involving errors of substantive or procedural law are not cognizable by way of prohibition (see, e.g., Matter of Blake v. Hogan, 25 N.Y.2d 747, 748, 303 N.Y.S.2d 505, 506, 250 N.E.2d 568; Matter of Watts v. Supreme Ct. of Tioga County, 36 A.D.2d 17, 18, 318 N.Y.S.2d 840, 841, mot. for lv. t......