Gallo v. Travis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gallo v. Travis

245 A.D.2d 448, 666 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13068

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 448 (Gallo 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

Gallo v. Travis, 245 A.D.2d 448, 666 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13068 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondents to discharge him from parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated November 20, 1996, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition. The discretionary decisions of the Board of Parole to reinstate active supervision of the petitioner and defer the determination as to whether he should be discharged from parole were made in accordance with law, and therefore are not subject to judicial review (see, Matter of Secilmic v Keane, 225 AD2d 628; Matter of Ganci v Hammock, 99 AD2d 546, 548).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Altman, Florio and McGinity, 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 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondents to discharge him from parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated November 20, 1996, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition. The discretionary decisions of the Board of Parole to reinstate active supervision of the petitioner and defer the determination as to whether he should be discharged from parole were made in accordance with law, and therefore are not subject to judicial review (see, Matter of Secilmic v Keane, 225 AD2d 628; Matter of Ganci v Hammock, 99 AD2d 546, 548).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Altman, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 448, 666 N.Y.S.2d 478, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallo-v-travis-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack