Braffman v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Braffman v. New York State Board of Parole

66 A.D.2d 799, 411 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14097

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.2d 799 (Braffman v. New York State Board 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

Braffman v. New York State Board of Parole, 66 A.D.2d 799, 411 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14097 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In an article 78 proceeding, inter alia, to review a determination by the respondents which revoked the petitioner’s conditional release, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 26, 1978, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Although petitioner did not have the opportunity to confront every possible witness, the testimony of the witness whom he did confront was sufficient to sustain the determination to revoke his conditional release. In any event, the uncontested charge that petitioner failed to inform his parole officer that he had been questioned by the Port Authority police, was itself sufficient to sustain the revocation of his conditional release. Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In an article 78 proceeding, inter alia, to review a determination by the respondents which revoked the petitioner’s conditional release, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 26, 1978, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Although petitioner did not have the opportunity to confront every possible witness, the testimony of the witness whom he did confront was sufficient to sustain the determination to revoke his conditional release. In any event, the uncontested charge that petitioner failed to inform his parole officer that he had been questioned by the Port Authority police, was itself sufficient to sustain the revocation of his conditional release. Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 799, 411 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braffman-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-1978.