Cunningham v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cunningham v. New York State Board of Parole

190 A.D.2d 922, 593 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1070

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 A.D.2d 922 (Cunningham 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

Cunningham v. New York State Board of Parole, 190 A.D.2d 922, 593 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1070 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeals (1) frt>m a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lewis, J.), entered December 19, 1991 in Clinton County, which dismissed peti[923]*923tioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request for parole, and (2) from an order of said court, entered March 12, 1993 in Clinton County, which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner has admittedly reappeared before respondent for a parole release hearing since the July 1990 hearing giving rise to the instant appeals and has again been denied parole. These appeals must therefore be dismissed as moot (see, Matter of Alexander v New York State Bd. of Parole, 175 AD2d 526, lv denied 78 NY2d 863).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, as moot, without costs.

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

— Appeals (1) frt>m a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lewis, J.), entered December 19, 1991 in Clinton County, which dismissed peti[923]*923tioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request for parole, and (2) from an order of said court, entered March 12, 1993 in Clinton County, which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner has admittedly reappeared before respondent for a parole release hearing since the July 1990 hearing giving rise to the instant appeals and has again been denied parole. These appeals must therefore be dismissed as moot (see, Matter of Alexander v New York State Bd. of Parole, 175 AD2d 526, lv denied 78 NY2d 863).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeals are dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 922, 593 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack