Jones v. New York State Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. New York State Division of Parole

205 A.D.2d 778, 614 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6561

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 27, 1994·Published

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the respondents to release the appellant on parole, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.), dated June 3, 1992, which denied the petitioner’s application to have the respondents held in civil contempt for failing to comply with a judgment of the same court, dated October 31, 1991, which directed the respondents to reconsider the appellant’s application for parole.

Ordered that the order is affirmed,. without costs or disbursements.

We find no merit to the petitioner’s contention that the Board of Parole should be held in contempt for failing to comply with the judgment dated October 31, 1991. In April 1992 the petitioner received a de novo review, resulting in a determination by the Board of Parole which complied with the requirements of the judgment of the Supreme Court. The petitioner’s application to have the Board held in contempt [779]*779was therefore properly denied (see, Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583, amended on other grounds 60 NY2d 652; Finance Inv. Co. [Bermuda] v Gossweiler, 145 AD2d 462, 463; cf., McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216). Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Copertino and Santucci, 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, inter alia, to compel the respondents to release the appellant on parole, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.), dated June 3, 1992, which denied the petitioner’s application to have the respondents held in civil contempt for failing to comply with a judgment of the same court, dated October 31, 1991, which directed the respondents to reconsider the appellant’s application for parole.

Ordered that the order is affirmed,. without costs or disbursements.

We find no merit to the petitioner’s contention that the Board of Parole should be held in contempt for failing to comply with the judgment dated October 31, 1991. In April 1992 the petitioner received a de novo review, resulting in a determination by the Board of Parole which complied with the requirements of the judgment of the Supreme Court. The petitioner’s application to have the Board held in contempt [779]*779was therefore properly denied (see, Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583, amended on other grounds 60 NY2d 652; Finance Inv. Co. [Bermuda] v Gossweiler, 145 AD2d 462, 463; cf., McCain v Dinkins, 84 NY2d 216). Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Jones v. New York State Division of Parole, 205 A.D.2d 778, 614 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6561 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

205 A.D.2d 778 (Jones v. New York State Division of Parole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related