Eastman v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eastman v. New York State Board of Parole

247 A.D.2d 740, 669 N.Y.S.2d 251, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1581

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 19, 1998·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s request for parole.

On January 10, 1996, petitioner, a prison inmate, appeared before respondent seeking parole release. Following a hearing, petitioner’s application was denied, prompting him to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. The Attorney-General has advised this Court by letter, however, that petitioner has been granted conditional release and was released to parole supervision on November 26, 1997. In view of this, petitioner’s challenge to respondent’s determination is now moot (see, Matter of Hamm v Regan, 34 NY2d 992, 993; Matter of Huse v New York State Bd. of Parole, 233 AD2d 645; Matter of D’Angelo v Hammock, 92 AD2d 703).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Ulster County) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s request for parole.

On January 10, 1996, petitioner, a prison inmate, appeared before respondent seeking parole release. Following a hearing, petitioner’s application was denied, prompting him to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. The Attorney-General has advised this Court by letter, however, that petitioner has been granted conditional release and was released to parole supervision on November 26, 1997. In view of this, petitioner’s challenge to respondent’s determination is now moot (see, Matter of Hamm v Regan, 34 NY2d 992, 993; Matter of Huse v New York State Bd. of Parole, 233 AD2d 645; Matter of D’Angelo v Hammock, 92 AD2d 703).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Eastman v. New York State Board of Parole, 247 A.D.2d 740, 669 N.Y.S.2d 251, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

247 A.D.2d 740 (Eastman v. New York State Board of Parole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related