From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Stallone

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
May 2, 2014
117 A.D.3d 1472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-05-2

The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. David F. TUSZYNSKI, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Superintendent David STALLONE, Cayuga Correctional Facility, Respondent–Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), entered October 29, 2012 in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment denied the petition. Charles A. Marangola, Moravia, for Petitioner–Appellant. David F. Tuszynski, Petitioner–Appellant Pro Se.


Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), entered October 29, 2012 in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment denied the petition.
Charles A. Marangola, Moravia, for Petitioner–Appellant. David F. Tuszynski, Petitioner–Appellant Pro Se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

Supreme Court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner's contentions were, or could have been, raised on direct appeal from the judgment of conviction or in a motion pursuant to CPL article 440, and thus habeas corpus relief is unavailable ( see People ex rel. Montgomery v. Artus, 114 A.D.3d 1171, 1172, 979 N.Y.S.2d 905;see also People v. Tuszynski, 71 A.D.3d 1407, 895 N.Y.S.2d 896,lv. denied15 N.Y.3d 810, 908 N.Y.S.2d 170, 934 N.E.2d 904). Additionally, “petitioner has shown no reason to justify a departure ‘from traditional orderly procedure’ ” ( People ex rel. Lanfair v. Corcoran, 60 A.D.3d 1351, 1351, 876 N.Y.S.2d 257,lv. denied12 N.Y.3d 714, 2009 WL 1773138;see People ex rel. Johnson v. Fischer, 69 A.D.3d 1100, 1101, 893 N.Y.S.2d 349,lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 707, 2010 WL 1286811,rearg. denied 15 N.Y.3d 745, 906 N.Y.S.2d 807, 933 N.E.2d 206). We have reviewed petitioner's contention in his pro se supplemental brief, and we conclude that it also could have been asserted on direct appeal or in a postconviction motion.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, and VALENTINO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Stallone

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
May 2, 2014
117 A.D.3d 1472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

People v. Stallone

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. David F. TUSZYNSKI…

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

Date published: May 2, 2014

Citations

117 A.D.3d 1472 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
117 A.D.3d 1472
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 3098

Citing Cases

Michael S. ex rel. Danyal S. v. Christa P.

We note that petitioner previously filed petitions for custody of the children pursuant to article 6, but he…