Martin Ginsberg v. Robert Abrams, as Attorney General of the State of New York
Martin GINSBERG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert ABRAMS, as Attorney General of the State of New York, Respondent-Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is taken from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, I. Leo Glas-ser, Judge, dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on grounds that petitioner was not a “prisoner” “in custody,” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (c). Petitioner’s argument that his removal from the bench of the Nassau Family Court, the revocation of his professional license to practice law, and his disqualification from being licensed as a real estate broker or insurance agent so greatly limited his economic mobility as to constitute “custody” is rejected and the dismissal of the petition is affirmed. Petitioner was convicted in the County Court of Nassau County, New York, of perjury before a grand jury looking into his receipt of money while serving as a New York State Assemblyman.
People v. Ginsberg, 80 Misc.2d 921 , 364 N.Y.S.2d 260 (1974), aff’d, 50 A.D.2d 804 , 375 N.Y.S.2d 855 (2d Dep’t 1975). He was sentenced to an unconditional discharge, a disposition that entails neither imprisonment, fine, nor probation supervision. New York Penal Law § 65.20 (McKinney 1975).
Fleming v. Abrams, 522 F. Supp. 1203 (S.D.N.Y.1981), aff’d, 697 F.2d 290 (2d Cir.1982);
Ostrer v. Aronwald, 434 F.Supp. 396, 398-99 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 567 F.2d 551 (2d Cir.1977).
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 6 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that petitioner’s removal from the bench, loss of license to practice law, and disqualification from being licensed as a real estate broker or insurance agent was -5- not custody)
-
(limitations on economic mobility do not constitute custody)
Cited by 11 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.