People ex rel. Gelormino v Brann

Annotate this Case
People ex rel. Gelormino v Brann 2020 NY Slip Op 04133 Decided on July 20, 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 July 20, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P.
JEFFREY A. COHEN
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
BETSY BARROS, JJ.
2020-05148

[*1]The People of the State of New York, ex rel. Louis Gelormino, on behalf of Rajsean Anderson, petitioner,

v

Cynthia Brann, etc., respondent.



Louis Gelormino, Staten Island, NY, petitioner pro se.

Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Alexander Fumelli of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & JUDGMENT

Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application to release Rajsean Anderson on his own recognizance upon Richmond County Docket No. CR-001713-20RI.

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

The petitioner has not demonstrated that the detention of Rajsean Anderson pursuant to the felony complaint is illegal (see CPLR 7002[a]; People ex rel. DeLia v Munsey, 26 NY3d 124, 127-128). Under the circumstances of this case, the People demonstrated good cause for the delay in conducting a preliminary hearing or obtaining an indictment (see CPL 180.80[3]; Executive Order [Cuomo] No. 202.28; People ex rel. Rolls v Brann, ___AD3d___, 2020 NY Slip Op 03922 [2d Dept]; People ex rel. Ciocco v Dzurenda, ___AD3d___, 2020 NY Slip Op 03370 [2d Dept]). We note that grand juries are scheduled to begin reconvening in Richmond County on August 10, 2020. Disposition of this felony complaint or a preliminary hearing thereon should commence no later than August 20, 2020.

BALKIN, J.P., COHEN, DUFFY and BARROS, 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.