Castro v. Russi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Castro v. Russi

216 A.D.2d 968, 628 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7417

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

DecidedJune 9, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 968 (Castro v. Russi) 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

Castro v. Russi, 216 A.D.2d 968, 628 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The determination to revoke petitioner’s parole is supported by substantial evidence. It was within the Hearing Officer’s province to disregard petitioner’s version as incredible (see, Matter of Madlock v Russi, 195 AD2d 646, 647; People ex rel. Pastore v Dalsheim, 88 AD2d 665, 666). There is no support in the record for petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was biased, and no proof that the outcome flowed from the alleged bias (see, Matter of Hughes v Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv., 74 NY2d 833, 834, mot to amend remittitur granted 74 NY2d 942; People ex rel. Johnson v New York State Bd. of Parole, 180 AD2d 914, 916). Because the record supports the Hearing Officer’s determination on each of the six charges against petitioner, the revocation of petitioner’s parole for three years is not shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Madlock v Russi, supra, at 647). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Howe, J.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The determination to revoke petitioner’s parole is supported by substantial evidence. It was within the Hearing Officer’s province to disregard petitioner’s version as incredible (see, Matter of Madlock v Russi, 195 AD2d 646, 647; People ex rel. Pastore v Dalsheim, 88 AD2d 665, 666). There is no support in the record for petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was biased, and no proof that the outcome flowed from the alleged bias (see, Matter of Hughes v Suffolk County Dept. of Civ. Serv., 74 NY2d 833, 834, mot to amend remittitur granted 74 NY2d 942; People ex rel. Johnson v New York State Bd. of Parole, 180 AD2d 914, 916). Because the record supports the Hearing Officer’s determination on each of the six charges against petitioner, the revocation of petitioner’s parole for three years is not shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see, Matter of Madlock v Russi, supra, at 647). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Howe, J.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 968, 628 N.Y.S.2d 926, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castro-v-russi-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack