Catanzaro v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Catanzaro v. Martin

283 A.D. 914, 130 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5716

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

DecidedApril 28, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D. 914 (Catanzaro v. Martin) 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

Catanzaro v. Martin, 283 A.D. 914, 130 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5716 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Order affirmed. Memorandum: The action of the warden in charging prisoner with the loss of so-called punishment and unearned time is tentative only (Correction Law, § 230, subd. 4) and does not become effective until such time as the prison board may determine the allowance or disallowance thereof. (Correction Law, §§ 235, 236.) In this respect the prison board is vested with sole authority, and its determination, being a judicial function, is not subject to review if done according to law. (Correction Law, § 236; People ex rel. 8carola v. Jackson, 276 App. Div. 939; cf. Matter of O’Connor v. State Bd. of Parole, 270 App. Div. 93; and Matter of Hines v. State Bd. of Parole, 293 N. V. 254.) All concur. (Appeal from an order denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding to compel respondents to credit petitioner with 468 days of “ good time ” claimed to have been wrongfully charged against him.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

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

Order affirmed. Memorandum: The action of the warden in charging prisoner with the loss of so-called punishment and unearned time is tentative only (Correction Law, § 230, subd. 4) and does not become effective until such time as the prison board may determine the allowance or disallowance thereof. (Correction Law, §§ 235, 236.) In this respect the prison board is vested with sole authority, and its determination, being a judicial function, is not subject to review if done according to law. (Correction Law, § 236; People ex rel. 8carola v. Jackson, 276 App. Div. 939; cf. Matter of O’Connor v. State Bd. of Parole, 270 App. Div. 93; and Matter of Hines v. State Bd. of Parole, 293 N. V. 254.) All concur. (Appeal from an order denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding to compel respondents to credit petitioner with 468 days of “ good time ” claimed to have been wrongfully charged against him.) Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 914, 130 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5716, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catanzaro-v-martin-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack