Hughes v. New York City Department of Probation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hughes v. New York City Department of Probation

281 A.D.2d 229, 721 N.Y.S.2d 770, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2429

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

DecidedMarch 13, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 229 (Hughes v. New York City Department of Probation) 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

Hughes v. New York City Department of Probation, 281 A.D.2d 229, 721 N.Y.S.2d 770, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2429 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about May 10, 2000, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging respondent Department of Probation’s refusal to delete certain allegedly inaccurate and improperly included information from the presentence report it prepared in connection with petitioner’s criminal proceeding, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding, and dismissed the proceeding, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 18, 2000, which, insofar as appealable, denied petitioner’s motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petition was properly dismissed on the ground that the challenges petitioner now makes to the presentence report should have been made before sentencing (see, Matter of Sciaraffo v New York City Dept. of Probation, 248 AD2d 477, citing, inter alia, Matter of Gayle v Lewis, 212 AD2d 919, lv denied 86 NY2d 701). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Andrias, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about May 10, 2000, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 challenging respondent Department of Probation’s refusal to delete certain allegedly inaccurate and improperly included information from the presentence report it prepared in connection with petitioner’s criminal proceeding, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding, and dismissed the proceeding, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about August 18, 2000, which, insofar as appealable, denied petitioner’s motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The petition was properly dismissed on the ground that the challenges petitioner now makes to the presentence report should have been made before sentencing (see, Matter of Sciaraffo v New York City Dept. of Probation, 248 AD2d 477, citing, inter alia, Matter of Gayle v Lewis, 212 AD2d 919, lv denied 86 NY2d 701). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Andrias, Lerner and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 229, 721 N.Y.S.2d 770, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-new-york-city-department-of-probation-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack