Festus v. Regan

50 A.D.2d 1084, 376 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12114
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 12, 1975
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 1084 (Festus v. Regan) 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
Festus v. Regan, 50 A.D.2d 1084, 376 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Respondents appeal from the judgment which declares void their action in setting the minimum period of imprisonment for petitioner and orders them to grant a new minimum period of imprisonment hearing and then to state the reasons for their decision and furnish a copy thereof to petitioner. The first issue is a narrow one, namely, must a prisoner’s jail time credit be added to the minimum period of imprisonment fixed by a member or committee of the board of parole in determining whether such minimum period of [1085]*1085imprisonment under subdivision 2-a of section 212, of the Correction Law is such that the entire board of parole must review it. Special Term held that it must, and we agree. A contrary holding would result in unequal treatment of prisoners who were unable to supply bail prior to conviction vis-ávis those who were released on bail. This holding does not encroach upon the board’s authority to set the minimum period of imprisonment under the statutes and is consistent with our ruling in People ex rel. Johnson v Montanye (42 AD2d 1041). The remaining issue is whether the board of parole must state its. reasons for the minimum period of imprisonment which it fixes and supply the prisoner with a copy thereof. Although the Attorney-General has stated impressive reasons in opposition to such requirement, we think that the judgment should also be affirmed in this respect. The board of parole is charged with the duty to fix such minimum period of imprisonment. In discharging this duty the board must review this prisoner’s record and act reasonably in light thereof. Thus, they must have reasons for their decision, and it can be no hardship for the board to state them and supply the prisoner with a copy of them. Indeed, the statute (Correction Law, § 212, subd 2.) contemplates such statement. This procedure will serve as a check against arbitrary and unreasonable action by the board and will have a salutary effect on prison relationships. (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming County Court declaring action of parole board void and ordering parole board to grant new minimum of imprisonment hearing.) Present — Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Goldman and Witmer, JJ.

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

Related

Burke v. New York State Board
103 Misc. 2d 615 (New York Supreme Court, 1980)
Rogers v. Hammock
100 Misc. 2d 280 (New York Supreme Court, 1979)
People ex rel. Holmes v. Smith
61 A.D.2d 1128 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
MATTER OF SPEED v. Regan
369 N.E.2d 1189 (New York Court of Appeals, 1977)
Coralluzzo v. New York State Parole Board
566 F.2d 375 (Second Circuit, 1977)
Seda v. Foley
90 Misc. 2d 626 (New York Supreme Court, 1977)
People v. Buchanan
57 A.D.2d 971 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Coralluzzo v. New York State Parole Board
420 F. Supp. 592 (W.D. New York, 1976)
Greene v. Smith
52 A.D.2d 292 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
People ex rel. Cook v. Smith
52 A.D.2d 1085 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Ganci v. Regan
52 A.D.2d 1055 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Van Luven v. Henderson
52 A.D.2d 1042 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
People ex rel. Ward v. Smith
52 A.D.2d 755 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Speed v. Regan
50 A.D.2d 1100 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)
People ex rel. Nemeth v. Smith
50 A.D.2d 1085 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 A.D.2d 1084, 376 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/festus-v-regan-nyappdiv-1975.