Almeyda v. New York State Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Almeyda v. New York State Division of Parole

4 A.D.3d 525, 771 N.Y.S.2d 722

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.3d 525 (Almeyda v. New York State Division of Parole) 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

Almeyda v. New York State Division of Parole, 4 A.D.3d 525, 771 N.Y.S.2d 722 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Parole dated April 17, 2002, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s request to be released on parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter Patsalos, J.), dated January 3, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The respondents acted in accordance with statutory requirements in denying the petitioner’s request to be released on parole. Accordingly, the discretionary denial of parole is not subject to judicial review (see Executive Law § 259-i [5]; Matter of Almeyda v New York State Div. of Parole, 269 AD2d 393 [2000]; Matter of Bouknight v Russi, 242 AD2d 329 [1997]).

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit. Prudenti, PJ., Florio, H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, 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 New York State Division of Parole dated April 17, 2002, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s request to be released on parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter Patsalos, J.), dated January 3, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The respondents acted in accordance with statutory requirements in denying the petitioner’s request to be released on parole. Accordingly, the discretionary denial of parole is not subject to judicial review (see Executive Law § 259-i [5]; Matter of Almeyda v New York State Div. of Parole, 269 AD2d 393 [2000]; Matter of Bouknight v Russi, 242 AD2d 329 [1997]).

The petitioner’s remaining contention is without merit. Prudenti, PJ., Florio, H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 525, 771 N.Y.S.2d 722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/almeyda-v-new-york-state-division-of-parole-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack