Holloman v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holloman v. State

151 A.D.2d 1030

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

DecidedJune 2, 1989

DocketClaim No. 70936

StatusPublished

This text of 151 A.D.2d 1030 (Holloman v. State) 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

Holloman v. State, 151 A.D.2d 1030 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and claim dismissed. Memorandum: The trial court erred in concluding that claimant was subjected to “excessive confinement.” Claimant had no right to be released on parole in November 1984. Whether to grant parole is a discretionary determination (Tarter v State of New York, 68 NY2d 511) and the claim that if a hearing had been conducted in November 1984, claimant would have been released on parole is mere speculation. Claimant’s maximum expiration date was March 14, 1986. Therefore, since claimant’s imprisonment until February 1985 was not unlawful, her claim for false or negligent imprisonment must be dismissed (see, Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, 456). (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims, Quigley, J. — false imprisonment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and claim dismissed. Memorandum: The trial court erred in concluding that claimant was subjected to “excessive confinement.” Claimant had no right to be released on parole in November 1984. Whether to grant parole is a discretionary determination (Tarter v State of New York, 68 NY2d 511) and the claim that if a hearing had been conducted in November 1984, claimant would have been released on parole is mere speculation. Claimant’s maximum expiration date was March 14, 1986. Therefore, since claimant’s imprisonment until February 1985 was not unlawful, her claim for false or negligent imprisonment must be dismissed (see, Broughton v State of New York, 37 NY2d 451, 456). (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims, Quigley, J. — false imprisonment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A.D.2d 1030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holloman-v-state-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack