People ex rel. Semexant v. Warden of Corrections of City of New York Brooklyn House Detention

• Decision Date: 22 July 1986
• Citation: 133 Misc.2d 202,506 N.Y.S.2d 812
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York on Relation of Joseph SEMEXANT, Petitioner, v. The WARDEN OF CORRECTIONS OF the CITY OF NEW YORK BROOKLYN HOUSE OF DETENTION, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 812

506 N.Y.S.2d 812

133 Misc.2d 202

The PEOPLE of the State of New York on Relation of Joseph

SEMEXANT, Petitioner, v. The WARDEN OF CORRECTIONS OF the CITY OF NEW YORK BROOKLYN

HOUSE OF DETENTION, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Kings County.

July 22, 1986.

Leonard Kaplan, Brooklyn, for petitioner.

Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty. by Glen Levin, Asst. Dist. Atty., Brooklyn, for respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER

RICHARD D. HUTTNER, Justice.

This writ of habeas corpus to test the legality of the warra for petitioner's extradition to Florida, raises the issue of what qualitative and quantitative evidence suffices to establish a prima facie case for extradition. In order to determine this issue the purpose of extradition should be considered.

Extradition between the states is derived from Article IV, § 2 of the United States Constitution. The purpose of extradition proceedings is to ensure that a state does not become a sanctuary for fugitives from criminal justice of a sister state, thereby "balkanizing" the administration of justice among the states. Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 287, 99 S.Ct. 530, 534, 58 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). The clear intent embodied in the Extradition Clause of the Federal Constitution and in New York's statute implementing the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (CPL § 570 et seq.), is that the law be liberally construed so as to facilitate extradition. People ex rel. Ingram v. Bound, 58 A.D.2d 961, 397 N.Y.S.2d 189 (3d Dept.1977) mot. for lv. to app. den. 42 N.Y.2d 811, 399 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 369 N.E.2d 1193 (1977); People ex rel. Pizzino v. Moran, 137 Misc. 905, 906, 204 N.Y.S. 590 (Sup.Ct.Bronx Cty., 1930) aff'd 231 App.Div. 724, 246 N.Y.S. 869 (1st Dept.1930). Procedurally, extradition "... contemplates the prompt return of a fugitive as soon as the State from which the fugitive fled appropriately demands return (italics mine) (People ex rel. Little v. Ciuros, 44 N.Y.2d 825, 826 [406 N.Y.S.2d 449, 377 N.E.2d 980 (1978) ] )". N.Y.Crim.Proc.Law (McKinney) § 570.02, Practice Commentary, Bellacosa; Michigan v. Doran, supra, 439 U.S. 288-289, 99 S.Ct. at 534-535.

In order to effectuate this policy of the "prompt return of a fugitive", a court of this state, considering a habeas corpus petition which seeks release from a grant of extradition, is substantially circumscribed in its scope of inquiry. Such proceedings should be summary in nature, and judicial exploration limited. People ex rel. Pizzino v. Moran, supra, 137 Misc. at 909-910, 204 N.Y.S.2d 590, quoting Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police, 245 U.S. 128, 38 S.Ct. 41, 62 L.Ed. 193 (1917); Michigan v. Doran, supra, 439 U.S. at 288-289, 99 S.Ct. at 534-535. Indeed, a reviewing court is empowered simply to determine whether the extradition documents are facially in order. They are in order if the following criteria are met: (1) the petitioner is the person named in the extradition request; (2) the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding state; and, (3) he is in fact a fugitive from the demanding state. Michigan v. Doran, supra, at 289, 99 S.Ct. at 535; Matter of Edelbaum v. Cuomo, 122 Misc.2d 1029, 472 N.Y.S.2d 302 (Sup.Ct.Queens Cty., 1984).

To effectuate the salutary purpose of extradition and to ensure its expeditious process, a court may, within due process constraints, relax formal evidentiary requirements. United States ex rel. Vitiello v. Flood, 374 F.2d 554, 557-558, (2d Cir., 1967). For example, hearsay is admissible. Bingham v. Bradle 241 U.S. 511, 517, 36 S.Ct. 634, 637, 60 L.Ed. 1136 (1916); Escobedo v. U.S., 623 F.2d 1098, 1102, (5th Cir.1980) cert. den. 449 U.S. 1036, 101 S.Ct. 612, 66 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980); State ex rel. Rudin v. Ward, 112 Misc.2d 62, 445 N.Y.S.2d 1002 (Sup Ct. New York Cty., 1981). Likewise, witnesses need not be called to testify. Indeed, affidavits may be used in support of extradition, which need not be even made upon personal knowledge. CPL § 570.46; United States ex rel. Vitiello v. Flood, supra, at 556-557; People ex rel. Donohoe v. Andrews, 104 Misc.2d 384, 428 N.Y.S.2d 384 (Sup Ct.Broome Cty., 1979).

In the case at bar, petitioner denies his presence in Florida at the time of the commission of the crime. Such denial places upon respondents the burden of making a prima facie showing that petitioner was indeed present in Florida at the time in question. That burden is met by the respondents simply placing in evidence the demand for extradition by the governor of the demanding state alleging petitioner's presence at the time of commission of the crime, together with other documentary proof. People ex rel. Degina v. Delaney, 53 A.D.2d 880, 385 N.Y.S.2d 332 (2d Dept., 1976); People ex rel. Pizzino v. Moran, supra; People ex rel. Harris v. Warden, 42 A.D.2d 549, 345 N.Y.S.2d 29 (1st Dept., 1973). Here, the "other" documentary...