Brazill ex rel. Doe v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brazill ex rel. Doe v. New York State Board of Parole

76 A.D.2d 864, 428 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11924

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 9, 1980·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel respondent to release petitioner from custody, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 27, 1980, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and petition granted to the extent that the matter is remitted to the Board of Parole for rehearing in accordance herewith. At the most recent parole hearing accorded to petitioner, in March, 1979, the Board of Parole properly considered its own guidelines which had not been in effect at the time of the previous hearing on March 14, 1978. In so doing, however, the board inaccurately stated that the petitioner had been "convicted of Rape 1°” (rather than attempted rape). Because of the likelihood that such error may have affected the board’s decision to deny parole, a new hearing is required. Cohalan, J. P., Margett, Martuscello and Weinstein, 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, inter alia, to compel respondent to release petitioner from custody, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 27, 1980, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and petition granted to the extent that the matter is remitted to the Board of Parole for rehearing in accordance herewith. At the most recent parole hearing accorded to petitioner, in March, 1979, the Board of Parole properly considered its own guidelines which had not been in effect at the time of the previous hearing on March 14, 1978. In so doing, however, the board inaccurately stated that the petitioner had been "convicted of Rape 1°” (rather than attempted rape). Because of the likelihood that such error may have affected the board’s decision to deny parole, a new hearing is required. Cohalan, J. P., Margett, Martuscello and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Brazill ex rel. Doe v. New York State Board of Parole, 76 A.D.2d 864, 428 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

76 A.D.2d 864 (Brazill ex rel. Doe v. New York State Board of Parole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related