From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Onondaga v. New York State Department

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 5, 1984
62 N.Y.2d 826 (N.Y. 1984)

Opinion

Argued April 30, 1984

Decided June 5, 1984

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, James P. O'Donnell, J.

Robert J. Rossi, County Attorney ( John R. Voninski of counsel), for appellants.

Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( Nancy A. Spiegel and Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondents.

Kenneth R. Fisher for Association of County Attorneys, amicus curiae.



MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Petitioners commenced this proceeding seeking relief in the nature of mandamus to compel respondents to accept sentenced prisoners within a specified period of time. Respondents concede that CPL 430.20 (subd 1) imposes upon them a clear legal obligation to accept sentenced prisoners "forthwith" ( Crespo v Hall, 56 N.Y.2d 856), but urge that this mandate has not been violated in the present case. We agree that, on this record, which indicates only that the relevant delays in accepting prisoners amount to an average of six days, petitioners have failed to establish such a clear violation of respondents' duty as to warrant mandamus relief (contrast Crespo v Hall, supra [an action for declaratory judgment and incidental injunctive relief]).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, MEYER, SIMONS and KAYE concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Matter of Onondaga v. New York State Department

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jun 5, 1984
62 N.Y.2d 826 (N.Y. 1984)
Case details for

Matter of Onondaga v. New York State Department

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of COUNTY OF ONONDAGA et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jun 5, 1984

Citations

62 N.Y.2d 826 (N.Y. 1984)
477 N.Y.S.2d 606
466 N.E.2d 146

Citing Cases

Rodriguez v. The City of New York

Instead, they argue that "the controlling statute requires... discharge 'forthwith' after a release decision"…

Rodriguez v. McMickens

The Court of Appeals has defined "forthwith" to mean "without delay." (Crespo v Hall, 56 N.Y.2d 856, 858;…