Finkelstein v. Travis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Finkelstein v. Travis

259 A.D.2d 546, 684 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2222

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 546 (Finkelstein v. Travis) 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

Finkelstein v. Travis, 259 A.D.2d 546, 684 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the State Board of Parole dated June 6, 1997, denying his request for parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), dated April 1, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

As the petitioner reappeared before the State Board of Parole subsequent to its June 6, 1997, determination and the Board again denied his application for parole, the petitioner’s appeal is dismissed as academic (see, Matter of Bey ah v New York State Div. of Parole, 249 AD2d 860; Matter of Herrera v New York State Bd. of Parole, 246 AD2d 703; Matter of Smith v Regan, 52 AD2d 928). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the State Board of Parole dated June 6, 1997, denying his request for parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.), dated April 1, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

As the petitioner reappeared before the State Board of Parole subsequent to its June 6, 1997, determination and the Board again denied his application for parole, the petitioner’s appeal is dismissed as academic (see, Matter of Bey ah v New York State Div. of Parole, 249 AD2d 860; Matter of Herrera v New York State Bd. of Parole, 246 AD2d 703; Matter of Smith v Regan, 52 AD2d 928). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 546, 684 N.Y.S.2d 909, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finkelstein-v-travis-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack