People ex rel. Azeez v Superintendent J. Noeth Attica Corr. Facility

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
People ex rel. Azeez v Superintendent J. Noeth Attica Corr. Facility 2021 NY Slip Op 31664(U) May 15, 2021 Supreme Court, Wyoming County Docket Number: 22091-20 Judge: Michael M. Mohun Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] At a term of Supreme Court held in and for the County of W.fJoming, in Warsaw, New York, on the /B &iy" of May, 2020. :,,..... PRESENT: ~ c::) HONORABLE MICHAEL M. MOHUN Acting Supreme Court Justice ( ...... ~? :::0 .... ,( uin )>CJ, STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF WYOMING ::ec: . z ::z-1· ~-< • (J rr1 """~;- ::::r. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. ABDOOL AZEEZ, #18-A-0314 Relator 1') ~ :It :ta- -< a) .,, :x ~ ~ ~ . MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT v. Index No. 22091-20 SUPERINTENDENT J. NOETH ATTICA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Respondent Upon reading and filing the above-named relator's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, verified on April 25, 2020, the Court finds that the petition is facially insufficient because it fails to comply with the requirements of CPLR §7002(c) (see Matter of Tullis v. Kelly, 154 A.D.2d 926 [1989]; People ex rel Medina v. Senkowski, 265 A.D.2d 779 [1999]). The Court further finds that the petition must be dismissed because the matter is . inappropriate for habeas corpus relief. In his petition, the relater is seeking to collaterally attack a judgment of conviction and sentence rendered in another court based upon grounds which either have been, or which could be, raised and decided through a direct appeal (the Court notes that the relator's direct appeal is currently pending, see The People. etc., respondent. v. Abdool Shaad Azeez. appellant, 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 85411(U) [motion decision, 2nd Dept., December 5, 2019]), or through a proceeding brought for relief pursuant to CPL Article 440 (see People ex rel. Knox v. Smith, 60 A.D.2d 789 [4th Dept., 1977], leave to appeal denied by 43 N;Y.2d 647 [1978]; People ex rel. Abdullah v. Walker, 199 A.D.2d 1074 [4th Dept., 1993], leave to appeal denied by 83 N.Y.2d 752 [1994]; People ex rel. Spencer v. Burge, 307 A.D.2d 772 [4th Dept., 2003]; People ex rel. Reed v. Travis, 12 A.D.3d 1102 [4th Dept., 2005], leave to appeal denied by 4 N.Y.3d 704 [2004]; People ex rel. Gloss v. Murray, 35 A.D.3d 1186 [4th Dept., 2006], leave to appeal denied by 8 N.Y.3d 807 [2007]). The relater has not shown that a basis exists for a departure from "traditional orderly procedure" in this case (People ex rel. Tuszynski v. Stallone, 117 A.D.3d 1472 [4th Dept., 2014]; People ex rel. [* 2] <.· / · Keitt v. McMann, 18 N.Y.2d 257 [1966)), NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the ·petition is denied i Dated: May/8, 2019 Acting Supreme Court Justic~ !

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.