Dukes v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dukes v. New York State Board of Parole

189 A.D.2d 681

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 A.D.2d 681 (Dukes 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

Dukes v. New York State Board of Parole, 189 A.D.2d 681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of respondent Board of Parole, dated November 28, 1989, that petitioner violated three conditions of his parole, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Seymour Schwartz, J.], entered November 29, 1991) dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination that petitioner violated a condition of parole by being in possession of stolen property is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [viii]), including the arresting officer’s testimony that he observed petitioner remove boards of lumber from a lumber yard and that he was informed by representatives of the lumber yard that petitioner did not have permission to do so. We note that the " 'legal residuum rule’ ” urged by petitioner is no longer followed (Matter of Eagle v Paterson, 57 NY2d 831, 833). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

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

Determination of respondent Board of Parole, dated November 28, 1989, that petitioner violated three conditions of his parole, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Seymour Schwartz, J.], entered November 29, 1991) dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s determination that petitioner violated a condition of parole by being in possession of stolen property is supported by a preponderance of the evidence (Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [viii]), including the arresting officer’s testimony that he observed petitioner remove boards of lumber from a lumber yard and that he was informed by representatives of the lumber yard that petitioner did not have permission to do so. We note that the " 'legal residuum rule’ ” urged by petitioner is no longer followed (Matter of Eagle v Paterson, 57 NY2d 831, 833). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dukes-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack