You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

People ex rel. Maksymik v. Smith

Citations: 85 A.D.2d 885; 449 N.Y.S.2d 661; 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16719

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 10, 1981; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Judgment affirmed unanimously. The relator's motion to convert the habeas corpus proceeding into one under CPLR article 78 is granted. The decision cites relevant case law, including *People ex rel. Knowles v Smith* and *People ex rel. Walker v Hammock*. The appeal originates from a judgment of the Wyoming Supreme Court, presided over by Judge Conable. Justices Dillon, Simons, Doerr, Denman, and Moule participated in the decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Citing Relevant Case Law in Judicial Decisions

Application: The decision in this case references previous cases, such as *People ex rel. Knowles v Smith* and *People ex rel. Walker v Hammock*, to support the judgment, demonstrating the use of precedent in affirming legal principles.

Reasoning: The decision cites relevant case law, including *People ex rel. Knowles v Smith* and *People ex rel. Walker v Hammock*.

Conversion of Habeas Corpus Proceeding under CPLR Article 78

Application: The court granted the relator's motion to convert the habeas corpus proceeding into a proceeding under CPLR Article 78, indicating the procedural flexibility available in certain judicial reviews.

Reasoning: The relator's motion to convert the habeas corpus proceeding into one under CPLR article 78 is granted.

Judicial Participation and Decision-Making

Application: The judgment was rendered by a panel of justices, including Dillon, Simons, Doerr, Denman, and Moule, under the leadership of Judge Conable, highlighting the collaborative nature of appellate court decisions.

Reasoning: Justices Dillon, Simons, Doerr, Denman, and Moule participated in the decision.

Unanimous Affirmation of Judgment

Application: The judgment was affirmed unanimously by the participating justices, indicating a complete agreement on the decision's legal reasoning and outcome.

Reasoning: Judgment affirmed unanimously.