From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People ex rel. Watters v. Warden, Anna M. Kross Ctr.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 2, 2013
106 A.D.3d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-05-2

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, ex rel. Kyle B. WATTERS, Esq., on behalf of Lance Williams, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Warden, Anna M. Kross CENTER, etc., Respondent–Appellant.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Orrie A. Levy of counsel), for appellant. Watters & Svetkey, LLP, New York (Jonathan Svetkey of counsel), for respondent.


Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Orrie A. Levy of counsel), for appellant. Watters & Svetkey, LLP, New York (Jonathan Svetkey of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered on or about January 11, 2013, which granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and fixed bail in the underlying criminal proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the writ denied, the habeas corpus proceeding dismissed, and petitioner's remand status reinstated without prejudice to any future bail applications before Criminal Term.

The proper scope of inquiry for a habeas court reviewing another court's bail determination is whether “the bail court abused its discretion by denying bail without reason or for reasons insufficient in law” ( People ex rel. Kuby v. Merritt, 96 A.D.3d 607, 608, 947 N.Y.S.2d 454 [1st Dept. 2012],lv. denied19 N.Y.3d 813, 2012 WL 4074179 [2012] ). “It is not the function of the habeas court to examine the bail question afresh or to make a de novo determination of bail” ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, the habeas court made no express or implied finding that the bail court abused its discretion, and instead engaged in an improper de novo determination of bail conditions. Applying the proper “abuse of discretion” standard, the habeas court should have denied the writ, and dismissed the proceeding, because the record contains support for the bail court's (Ann M. Donnelly, J.) determination to remand defendant after considering the factors enumerated in CPL 510.30(2)(a).

TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, SWEENY, FEINMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People ex rel. Watters v. Warden, Anna M. Kross Ctr.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
May 2, 2013
106 A.D.3d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

People ex rel. Watters v. Warden, Anna M. Kross Ctr.

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, ex rel. Kyle B. WATTERS, Esq., on…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: May 2, 2013

Citations

106 A.D.3d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
963 N.Y.S.2d 864
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 3165

Citing Cases

People v. Schrialdi

"It is not the function of the habeas court to examine the bail question afresh or to make a de novo…

People v. Brann

The scope of habeas review of a bail determination is thus very limited. As set forth in People ex rel…