Good v. Hammock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Good v. Hammock

64 A.D.2d 1011, 409 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13018

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 A.D.2d 1011 (Good v. Hammock) 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

Good v. Hammock, 64 A.D.2d 1011, 409 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13018 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: A declaration of delinquency on relator’s sentence for second degree assault was dismissed as a result of the failure of appellant Parole Board to hold a parole revocation hearing for over four years after the alleged violation occurred. Appellant contends that inasmuch as petitioner was incarcerated upon a subsequent conviction for third degree burglary during this period, a final revocation hearing was unnecessary. We disagree. It is settled that a parole violator is entitled to a prompt parole revocation hearing even when he is incarcerated because of a new conviction and that the failure to provide such a hearing requires a dismissal of the declaration of delinquency. (People ex rel. Walsh v Vincent, 40 NY2d 1049; Matter of Beattie v New York State Bd. of Parole, 39 NY2d 445; Matter of Smith v Chairman of New York State Bd. of Parole, 60 AD2d 775, affd 44 NY2d 982.) (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming Supreme Court—art 78.) Present— Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Dillon, Hancock, Jr., and Schnepp, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: A declaration of delinquency on relator’s sentence for second degree assault was dismissed as a result of the failure of appellant Parole Board to hold a parole revocation hearing for over four years after the alleged violation occurred. Appellant contends that inasmuch as petitioner was incarcerated upon a subsequent conviction for third degree burglary during this period, a final revocation hearing was unnecessary. We disagree. It is settled that a parole violator is entitled to a prompt parole revocation hearing even when he is incarcerated because of a new conviction and that the failure to provide such a hearing requires a dismissal of the declaration of delinquency. (People ex rel. Walsh v Vincent, 40 NY2d 1049; Matter of Beattie v New York State Bd. of Parole, 39 NY2d 445; Matter of Smith v Chairman of New York State Bd. of Parole, 60 AD2d 775, affd 44 NY2d 982.) (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming Supreme Court—art 78.) Present— Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Dillon, Hancock, Jr., and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 1011, 409 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/good-v-hammock-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack