Home/New York Court of Appeals/County of Nassau v. Cuomo

County of Nassau v. Cuomo

504 N.E.2d 689, 69 N.Y.2d 737, 512 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 15069
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 20, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 504 N.E.2d 689 (County of Nassau v. Cuomo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
County of Nassau v. Cuomo, 504 N.E.2d 689, 69 N.Y.2d 737, 512 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 15069 (N.Y. 1987).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, in accordance with this memorandum and, as so modified, affirmed for the reasons stated by the Appellate Division (121 AD2d 428).

The Appellate Division declared that the county is obliged to accept for detention all alleged parole violators whose parole is supervised in Nassau County. However, Executive Law § 259-i (3) (a) (i) unambiguously provides that Nassau County is responsible for lodging alleged parole violators arrested within the county. Thus, that portion of the declaration should be modified to compel the county to accept for detention all alleged parole violators who are arrested within Nassau County.

The courts below reached their considered decisions concerning the number of days after which the State must accept prisoners based upon a period measured from sentencing (see, Crespo v Hall, 56 NY2d 856; CPL 430.20 [1]), rather than from the date of State-readiness (see, Correction Law §§ 600-a, 601). Both parties now urge for the first time before this court that [741]*741the State’s obligation to accept a prisoner "forthwith” (CPL 430.20) commences when the prisoner becomes State-ready, rather than upon sentencing, and ask us to determine the lawful period measured from the date of State-readiness. We cannot, however, consider such an issue for the first time on appeal.

Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur; Chief Judge Wachtler and Judge Bellacosa taking no part.

Order modified, without costs, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.

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

Related

Uviles v. City of New York
130 F.4th 27 (Second Circuit, 2025)
Ban v. State
187 Misc. 2d 905 (New York State Court of Claims, 2001)
County of Erie v. New York State Division of Parole
244 A.D.2d 960 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People ex rel. Perdue v. Jablonsky
174 Misc. 2d 604 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)
Higgins v. New York State Department of Correctional Services
171 Misc. 2d 629 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)
Wallace v. Conroy
945 F. Supp. 628 (S.D. New York, 1996)
Brooome County v. State
152 A.D.2d 160 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Broome County v. State
141 Misc. 2d 693 (New York Supreme Court, 1988)
Ayers v. Coughlin
530 N.E.2d 373 (New York Court of Appeals, 1988)
Ayers v. Coughlin
137 A.D.2d 300 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Dooley v. Coughlin
134 A.D.2d 350 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
County of Monroe v. Cuomo
132 A.D.2d 1003 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Howell v. McGinity
129 A.D.2d 60 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
504 N.E.2d 689, 69 N.Y.2d 737, 512 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 15069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/county-of-nassau-v-cuomo-ny-1987.