We remanded the matter to the Supreme Court for a determination on the merits. ( 157 A.D.2d 122. ) The Supreme Court then considered the petition on the merits and in an order dated May 8, 1990, dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied petitioner an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the State of Florida was guilty of laches.
The court found that Relator G established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and a significant threat of retaliatory violence due to the filing of this writ. SeeStrachan v. Soloff , 157 A.D.2d 122, 554 N.Y.S.2d 565 (1st Dept. 1990). See alsoMapp v. Reno , 241 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2001) (noting that federal courts have inherent authority to admit individuals to bail pending disposition of the merits of the habeas petition provided that petitioner raises "substantial" claims and shows that "extraordinary circumstances" exist that make the grant of bail necessary.).
As such, it is fully within this Court's discretion and authority to grant- or deny- an application for admittance to bail in this matter and, if so required, to revoke the bail and restore the Petitioner to the custody of the proper authorities. See,Bell v. Center , 2010 WL 2000526 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2010) ; People ex rel. Robertson v. New York State Bd. Of Parole, 67 N.Y.2d 197, 501 N.Y.S.2d 634, 492 N.E.2d 762 (Ct. App. 1986) ; People ex rel. Lee v. New York State Bd. Of Parole , 165 A.D.2d 959, 561 N.Y.S.2d 930 (1990) ; People ex rel. Alexander v. LeFevre , 116 A.D.2d 869, 498 N.Y.S.2d 485 (3rd Dept. 1986) ; People ex rel. Walker v. New York State Bd. Of Parole, 98 A.D.2d 33, 469 N.Y.S.2d 780 (2d Dept. 1983) ; Kurlander v. Mark , 78 A.D.2d 588, 432 N.Y.S.2d 287 (4th Dept. 1980) ; Strachan v. Soloff ; 157 A.D.2d 122, 554 N.Y.S.2d 565 (1st Dept. 1990).