Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ayers v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 26, 1988Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Yesawich, Jr., J.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part). We would affirm Supreme Court’s judgment.

The term "forthwith” is not discretionary (see, Bellacosa, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 11 A, CPL 430.20, at 309), it means "without delay” (Crespo v Hall, 56 NY2d 856, 858; County of Monroe v State of New York, 123 AD2d 141, 142, lv denied 69 NY2d 612) and not merely whenever the Department of Correctional Services deems it prudent to receive State-ready inmates. By in effect defining "forthwith” to mean promptly, only if the county jail is full, otherwise at the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Servomation Corp. v. State Tax CommissionNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Crespo v. HallNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
  3. McNulty v. ChinlundAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
  4. Benjamin v. MalcolmDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1986
  5. County of Monroe v. CuomoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API