People ex rel. Leavitt v. Maginley-Liddie

People ex rel. Leavitt, 2025 NY Slip Op 03077 (Appellate Division Second Judicial Department 2025) · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · May 21, 2025 · No. 2025-05005

Summary

This Appellate Division, Second Department decision addresses a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking the release of Ari Manswell on his own recognizance or the setting of reasonable bail following a Kings County indictment. The court reviewed the Supreme Court's prior determination regarding bail standards and found no violation of constitutional or statutory requirements. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ without costs or disbursements.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
Dillon, J.P.; Christopher; Wan; Hom, JJ.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
May 21, 2025
Docket number
2025-05005
Procedural posture
Application for a writ of habeas corpus seeking release on recognizance or bail; writ dismissed.
Precedential value
published
Parties
People ex rel. Leavitt v. Maginley-Liddie
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

habeas corpusbailcriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the determination of the Supreme Court, Kings County, violated constitutional or statutory standards
  2. Whether the writ of habeas corpus should be granted to release Ari Manswell on recognizance or set bail.

Holdings

  1. The determination did not violate constitutional or statutory standards; the writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.

Key quotations

The determination of the Supreme Court, Kings County, did not violate "constitutional or statutory standards".

Factual background

Ari Manswell was indicted in Kings County (Indictment No. 77100/2024). The People, ex rel. Robin Gordon Leavitt, filed a writ of habeas corpus on his behalf, requesting release on his own recognizance or, alternatively, reasonable bail.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court, Kings County, had previously determined that the petitioner's detention did not violate constitutional or statutory standards. The appellate division reviewed that determination.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…