Blake v. Hogan

• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: FULD
• Citation: Blake v. Hogan, 303 N.Y.S.2d 505, 25 N.Y.2d 747, 250 N.E.2d 568 (N.Y. 1969)
• Decision Date: 02 June 1969
• 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.

Page 505

303 N.Y.S.2d 505

25 N.Y.2d 747, 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 of Appeals of New York.

June 2, 1969.

John M. Armentano, Mineola, for appellants.

Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty. (Alan Scribner and Michael R. Juviler, New York City, of counsel) for respondents.

MEMORANDUM.

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.

FULD, C.J., and BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, BREITEL and JASON, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.