Angell ex rel Brown v. Ferris, 227 A.D.2d 475 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Angell ex rel Brown v. Ferris, 227 A.D.2d 475 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Pelton v. Crummey (nyappdiv, 2017-12-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Pelton v. Crummey
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Accordingly, when the felony complaint was superseded by the indictment handed up against petitioner (see People v Watson, 105 AD3d 1264, 1265 [2013]), it “obviat[ed] the need for a [preliminary] hearing and” rendered any issues regarding her entitlement to one moot (People v Damphier, 51 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 787 [2008]; see CPL 180.80 [2] [a]; Matter of Angell v Ferris, 227 AD2d 475, 475-476 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 816 [1996]; People v Frazier, 202 AD2d 985, 985 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 910 [1994]; People v Phillips, 88 AD2d at 672 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Damphier
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Hirschberg v Close, 1 NY2d 258, 261 [1956]; Matter of Angell v Ferris, 227 AD2d 475, 476 [1996] , lv denied 88 NY2d 816 [1996]; Preiser, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 11A, CPL 180.10, at 162).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jacobs v. Biamonte (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
However, appellate courts “have discretion to review a case if the controversy or issue involved is likely to be repeated, typically evades review, and raises substantial and novel questions” (Wisholek v Douglas, supra at 742, citing Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, supra at 714-715; see Iafrate v Suffolk County Bd. of Elections, 42 NY2d 991, 992 [1977]; Matter of Carr v New York State Bd. of Elections, 40 NY2d 556, 559 [1976]; Matter of Avella v Batt, 33 AD3d 77, 80 [2006]; Matter of Brown v Appelman, 241 AD2d 279, 282 [1998]; Matter of Robison Oil Corp. v County of Westchester, 236 AD2d 5…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Brown v. City of New York (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1999 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Angell v. Ferris, 227 A.D.2d 475 , 643 N.Y.S.2d 124 (N.Y.App.Div.1996) (upholding an order of the Supreme Court which found the local criminal court did not have jurisdiction to conduct a post-arraignment hearing after an indictment had been returned by the grand jury); Cummings v. Koppell, 212 A.D.2d 11 , 627 N.Y.S.2d 480 (N.Y.App.Div.1995) (finding that a local criminal court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to accept guilty pleas and dismiss charges after actions of a grand jury or superior court).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Thomas N. N. Angell, on Behalf of Cecil E. Brown
v.
Robert D. Ferris
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 13, 1996.
227 A.D.2d 475
1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5063
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the respondents to hold a prompt preliminary hearing pursuant to CPL 180.10 (2), the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated September 2, 1994, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

While the petitioner was an inmate in a State correctional facility, he was charged with murdering another inmate. He was arraigned on a felony complaint before a local criminal court on July 20, 1994, and pleaded not guilty. On July 28, 1994, the petitioner requested a preliminary hearing pursuant[*476] to CPL 180.10 (2), and the local criminal court scheduled a preliminary hearing for September 8, 1994. The petitioner then commenced the instant proceeding to compel the respondents to hold a prompt preliminary hearing pursuant to CPL 180.10 (2). Thereafter, an indictment was voted against the petitioner, and the Supreme Court denied the petition on the ground that the local criminal court no longer had jurisdiction (see, CPL 10.30 [2]).

The petitioner concedes that the appeal is moot since the Grand Jury had already voted to indict him. However, he asks this Court to review the merits of whether he was denied his right to a prompt preliminary hearing pursuant to CPL 180.10 (2) under the exception to the mootness doctrine. We decline to do so. The Court of Appeals has stated that a court should rule on an issue even though it is moot as to those who seek relief when there is: (1) a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public, (2) a phenomenon typically evading review, and (3) a showing of significant or important questions not previously passed on, i.e., substantial and novel issues (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 715). Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, we find that the issue of whether he was denied a prompt preliminary hearing is not a significant or important question since the petitioner was already incarcerated for a previous conviction and therefore was not eligible for the remedy provided under CPL 180.80 (cf., People ex rel. Guggenheim v Mucci, 32 NY2d 307; People ex rel. Maxian v Brown, 164 AD2d 56; People ex rel. Vancour v Scoralick, 140 AD2d 658). Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Copertino, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.