Matter of Boykin v DeRosa

Annotate this Case
Matter of Boykin v DeRosa 2018 NY Slip Op 03975 Decided on June 6, 2018 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 6, 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J.
REINALDO E. RIVERA
ROBERT J. MILLER
HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
2018-03282 DECISION, ORDER & JUDGMENT

[*1]In the Matter of Connie Boykin, petitioner,

v

Nicholas DeRosa, etc., et al., respondents.



Connie Boykin, Newburgh, NY, petitioner pro se.

Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, New York, NY (Charles F. Sanders of counsel), for respondent Nicholas De Rosa.

David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Andrew R. Kass and Robert H. Middlemiss of counsel), respondent pro se.



Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent Honorable Nicholas DeRosa, a retired Judge of the County Court, Orange County, to determine the petitioner's motion pursuant to CPL article 440 to vacate a judgment of conviction of the same court rendered September 25, 2015, in a criminal action entitled People v Boykin , commenced in the same court under Indictment No. 14-702, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

ORDERED that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022(b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

ADJUDGED that the petition is denied as academic and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The instant proceeding has been rendered academic in light of the determination of the subject motion in an order of the County Court, Orange County, dated November 9, 2017.

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., RIVERA, MILLER and LASALLE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.