Healey v. Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Healey v. Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility

55 A.D.2d 605, 389 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15319

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.2d 605 (Healey v. Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility) 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

Healey v. Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, 55 A.D.2d 605, 389 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by petitioner from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated February 18, 1976, which, inter alia, ordered the respondent Board of Parole to furnish him with reasons for any action it took pursuant to a parole hearing held on November 25, 1975. Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner admits in his pro se brief that the Parole Board did submit reasons for any action it took pursuant to the parole hearing held in November, 1975, as required by the order sought to be reviewed, but claims that the board’s response was untimely and that the reasons given were not meaningful. The correct procedure to follow is not an appeal from the February 18 order, but a proper application to the court which made that order to direct sufficient compliance therewith. We note that a number of other issues which have been raised by the petitioner in his brief were not raised in connection with any order or judgment which is properly before this court. In any event, most of those issues have already been reviewed by another appellate court and have been found to be without merit (see Matter of Healey v Ward, 49 AD2d 989). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani and Mollen, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by petitioner from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated February 18, 1976, which, inter alia, ordered the respondent Board of Parole to furnish him with reasons for any action it took pursuant to a parole hearing held on November 25, 1975. Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner admits in his pro se brief that the Parole Board did submit reasons for any action it took pursuant to the parole hearing held in November, 1975, as required by the order sought to be reviewed, but claims that the board’s response was untimely and that the reasons given were not meaningful. The correct procedure to follow is not an appeal from the February 18 order, but a proper application to the court which made that order to direct sufficient compliance therewith. We note that a number of other issues which have been raised by the petitioner in his brief were not raised in connection with any order or judgment which is properly before this court. In any event, most of those issues have already been reviewed by another appellate court and have been found to be without merit (see Matter of Healey v Ward, 49 AD2d 989). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani and Mollen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 605, 389 N.Y.S.2d 121, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/healey-v-superintendent-green-haven-correctional-facility-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack