People ex rel. Mulry v Franchi

Annotate this Case
People v Franchi 2020 NY Slip Op 02388 Decided on April 23, 2020 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 April 23, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
JEFFREY A. COHEN
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
2020-02951

[*1]The People of the State of New York, ex rel. Laurette Mulry, on behalf of David Paterno, petitioner,

v

Michael Franchi, etc., respondent.



Laurette D. Mulry, named herein as Laurette Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Agnes Neldner-Ratuszny of counsel), petitioner pro se.

Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Thomas C. Costello and Timothy P. Finnerty of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & JUDGMENT

Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application, inter alia, pursuant to CPL 180.80, to release David Paterno in a criminal action pending under Suffolk County Docket No. CR-011626-20SU.

ADJUDGED that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner has not established that David Paterno is entitled to habeas corpus relief, as the People have demonstrated that Executive Order 202.8 temporarily suspends the operation of CPL 180.80 (see People ex rel Nevins v Brann, 2020 WL 1878094[Sup Ct, Queens County, April 13, 2020]; People v Hood , 2020 NY Slip Op 50384[U][City Court of Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County, April 4, 2020; People ex rel Hamilton v Brann , 2020 NY Slip Op 50392[U][Sup Ct, Bronx County, April 2, 2020]). At this time, under the circumstances presented, we do not address the petitioner's remaining contentions (see County of Riverside v McLaughlin , 500 US 44; Gerstein v Pugh , 420 US 103; People v Hood , supra ).

MASTRO, J.P., COHEN, DUFFY and CHRISTOPHER, 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.