Section 206 is found in Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter VII. Chapter VII relates solely to the preliminary examination. The preliminary examination is a procedure

whereby an accused person is brought, after arrest, before
the appropriate magistrate for a hearing at which the accused
is informed of the charge against him, his identity is
established and his answer to the charge is received
(Criminal Procedure in New York by Paperno & Goldstein,
Chapter 5, $$ 51, 52 [1960]).

It is clear that § 206 only entitles the relator to a
transcript of his preliminary examination. The relator did
not request a transcript of his preliminary examination; he
requested a transcript of the proceedings relating to the
denial of his motion for an interlocutory order. The
relator does not claim that he was denied a transcript of
a preliminary examination.

Therefore, S 206 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not violated.

Judge FARREL did not deny the relator's request for the transcript because of the lack of funds. His request was denied because, as the Court stated, "there is no authority for this court to grant the relief requested by defendant" (19).

Section 206 did not confer authority upon the Court to order that a transcript of a proceeding on a motion be given

to the relator and relator cites no other authority which would compel the Court to issue such an order.

The relator, therefore, failed to state a ground upon which a writ of habeas corpus could be granted.

POINT II

THE RELATOR FAILS TO SHOW THAT THE

DENIAL OF HIS REQUEST FOR A TRANSCRIPT
OF THE HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO
SUPPRESS EVIDENCE PREJUDICED HIM IN
ANY WAY.

The relator's brief does not suggest how he was prejudiced by his not having a transcript of the hearing on the motion to suppress at his trial.

Attached to the relator's brief are certain excerpts from the hearing on his motion to suppress and the trial.* The relator states in his petition that the record of the hearing and of the trial show that the denial of the transcript prejudiced him, but he fails to state how (12). The portions of the hearing on his motion to suppress and trial which are attached to relator's brief show that:

(a) At the hearing on the motion to suppress evidence police officers, Malone and Moscowitz, testified that they saw an undercover officer, Modeste, enter certain "premises" with cash and return later with drugs and no cash (pp. 57, 58 of transcript attached to appellant's brief).

The relator obtained the excerpts from the hearing on

his motion to suppress subsequent to his trial.