Calcione v. New York State Board of Parole

49 A.D.2d 924, 373 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11186
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 20, 1975
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 924 (Calcione 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
Calcione v. New York State Board of Parole, 49 A.D.2d 924, 373 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

In a proceeding by an inmate of Matteawan State Hospital for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum, pursuant to CPLR 2307 (subd [a]), requiring the Fishkill Correctional Facility of the Department of Correctional Services of the State of New York to produce certain records of Matteawan State Hospital in order to assist petitioner in establishing his fitness to be paroled to a civil mental hospital, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated June 23, 1975, which granted the application, subject to appellant’s right to apply to the court to redact any information revealing the identity of any informant. Order affirmed, without costs. In order to establish his fitness for parole to a civil mental hospital, petitioner seeks disclosure of all psychiatric evaluations and' reports, letters, documents and tests relating to his care and treatment, as well as nonmedical records of prison employees concerning his adjustment and daily routine during his incarceration in Matteawan State Hospital. Petitioner is á mute. This disability will make it particularly difficult for him to present his case for [925]*925parole and it places him at a distinct disadvantage not suffered by those not so afflicted. Because of his circumstance, the interests of justice will best be served by disclosure of the information sought, subject to appellant’s right to apply for redaction of any information tending to disclose the identity of any informant. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Bagley
183 Misc. 2d 523 (New York Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 A.D.2d 924, 373 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calcione-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-1975.