Bulger v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bulger v. New York State Board of Parole

183 A.D.2d 451, 585 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6748

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

DecidedMay 12, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 183 A.D.2d 451 (Bulger 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

Bulger v. New York State Board of Parole, 183 A.D.2d 451, 585 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Determination of respondents, New York State Board of Parole et al., dated December 27, 1990, which found that petitioner had violated two conditions of his release to parole supervision and that his parole should therefore be revoked and petitioner returned to prison until the maximum expiration of his sentence, is unanimously confirmed, without costs, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred [452]*452to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Leland DeGrasse, J.], entered December 11, 1991), is dismissed.

There is substantial evidence to support the determination of the Parole Board that petitioner had violated the conditions of his release (see, People ex rel. Walker v Hammock, 78 AD2d 369, 371). More particularly, there was evidence that petitioner violated a specific condition of his parole by contacting his former girlfriend and harassing and physically threatening her, and contacting his wife.

Petitioner’s attack upon the time assessment of his re-imprisonment is not a ground for relief as the Parole Board is not required to fix a date for a parole reconsideration hearing (Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 75). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Milonas, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.

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

— Determination of respondents, New York State Board of Parole et al., dated December 27, 1990, which found that petitioner had violated two conditions of his release to parole supervision and that his parole should therefore be revoked and petitioner returned to prison until the maximum expiration of his sentence, is unanimously confirmed, without costs, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred [452]*452to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Leland DeGrasse, J.], entered December 11, 1991), is dismissed.

There is substantial evidence to support the determination of the Parole Board that petitioner had violated the conditions of his release (see, People ex rel. Walker v Hammock, 78 AD2d 369, 371). More particularly, there was evidence that petitioner violated a specific condition of his parole by contacting his former girlfriend and harassing and physically threatening her, and contacting his wife.

Petitioner’s attack upon the time assessment of his re-imprisonment is not a ground for relief as the Parole Board is not required to fix a date for a parole reconsideration hearing (Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 75). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Milonas, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.D.2d 451, 585 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bulger-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack