From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Jacobsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 1951
278 App. Div. 945 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Opinion

June 4, 1951.


Petitioner-respondent's infant son, fourteen years of age, charged by petition of a police officer as a juvenile delinquent in driving an automobile upon public streets, was remanded by the Children's Court, Nassau County, to appellant's children's shelter for ten days pending an investigation of the charge. With no showing whatever of reasons therefor, the court refused to release the child on bail or to parole him in the custody of his father, petitioner-respondent herein. Order sustaining writ of habeas corpus and directing the discharge of the infant from appellant's custody upon giving specified bail affirmed, without costs. Upon the record we are of opinion that it was an improvident exercise of the discretion vested in the court to so restrain the child in his liberty and that the writ of habeas corpus was properly issued by the Supreme Court to review that restraint. (Children's Court Act, § 20; Civ. Prac. Act, § 1230; People ex rel. Riesner v. New York Nursery Child's Hosp., 230 N.Y. 119, 124; People ex rel. Shapiro v. Keeper of City Prison, 290 N.Y. 393, 398.) Nolan, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Jacobsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 4, 1951
278 App. Div. 945 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)
Case details for

Matter of Jacobsen

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Application of JOHN J. JACOBSEN, Respondent, for a…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 4, 1951

Citations

278 App. Div. 945 (N.Y. App. Div. 1951)

Citing Cases

People ex Rel. Klein v. Krueger

It is not very helpful to attempt to categorize the cases or analyze the extent of reviewability under the…

MATTER OF" JONES" v. ROCHESTER SPCC

Petitioner makes no claim that Children's Court has delayed action in the proceeding. For that reason and…