D'Angelo v. Hammock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

D'Angelo v. Hammock

92 A.D.2d 703, 460 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16986

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 92 A.D.2d 703 (D'Angelo v. Hammock) 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

D'Angelo v. Hammock, 92 A.D.2d 703, 460 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by permission from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Kahn, J.), entered August 4, 1982 in Albany County, which, inter alla, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, referred to Trial Term the issue of whether petitioner’s parole release hearing was conducted by at least two members of the Board of Parole (9 NYCRR 8002.2). Petitioner was released from confinement in December, 1982. Therefore, the issue presented on this appeal is moot. (Matter of Hamm v Regan, 34 NY2d 992; Matter of Rodriguez v Hongisto, 78 AD2d 921), and since it does not present a recurring, substantial issue which otherwise would escape appellate review, the appeal should be dismissed (Matter ofHearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715; People ex rel. Rodriguez v LeFevre, 84 AD2d 661). Appeal dismissed, as moot, without costs. Kane, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by permission from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Kahn, J.), entered August 4, 1982 in Albany County, which, inter alla, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, referred to Trial Term the issue of whether petitioner’s parole release hearing was conducted by at least two members of the Board of Parole (9 NYCRR 8002.2). Petitioner was released from confinement in December, 1982. Therefore, the issue presented on this appeal is moot. (Matter of Hamm v Regan, 34 NY2d 992; Matter of Rodriguez v Hongisto, 78 AD2d 921), and since it does not present a recurring, substantial issue which otherwise would escape appellate review, the appeal should be dismissed (Matter ofHearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715; People ex rel. Rodriguez v LeFevre, 84 AD2d 661). Appeal dismissed, as moot, without costs. Kane, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.2d 703, 460 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dangelo-v-hammock-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack