Abreu v. New York Department of Correctional Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abreu v. New York Department of Correctional Services

106 A.D.2d 501, 484 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21532

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.2d 501 (Abreu v. New York Department of Correctional Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abreu v. New York Department of Correctional Services, 106 A.D.2d 501, 484 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21532 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents denying the petitioner release on parole, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated December 13, 1983, which dismissed the petition.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

This proceeding, commenced more than four months after the determination challenged became final, is time barred (CPLR 217; Matter of Menechino v Division of Parole, 26 NY2d 837). In any event, the factors enumerated by the Parole Board were a sufficient predicate for the denial of parole (Matter of Bacon v Hammock, 96 AD2d 557). Titone, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents denying the petitioner release on parole, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated December 13, 1983, which dismissed the petition.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

This proceeding, commenced more than four months after the determination challenged became final, is time barred (CPLR 217; Matter of Menechino v Division of Parole, 26 NY2d 837). In any event, the factors enumerated by the Parole Board were a sufficient predicate for the denial of parole (Matter of Bacon v Hammock, 96 AD2d 557). Titone, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.2d 501, 484 N.Y.S.2d 497, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abreu-v-new-york-department-of-correctional-services-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack