Justiano v. New York State Board of Parole

189 A.D.2d 566
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 5, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 189 A.D.2d 566 (Justiano v. New York State Board of Parole) 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
Justiano v. New York State Board of Parole, 189 A.D.2d 566 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

— Determination of respondent Commissioner, dated June 28, 1991, which, after a hearing, affirmed the Hearing Officer’s determination that the petitioner violated two conditions of his parole and returned petitioner to prison for one year, unanimously confirmed and the proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Leland De-Grasse, J.], entered March 27, 1992), dismissed, without costs.

The Division of Parole received a notification that the petitioner-parolee had been arrested. The Division commenced a hearing charging the petitioner, inter alia, with failing to appear for a scheduled report, and committing an assault while on parole. The petitioner challenges the reliability of the certified transcript of conviction, which he maintains does not prove that he committed the crime charged in the report. We disagree.

While the petitioner’s identity and the person committing the assault cannot be presumed solely from a name listed on the certified transcript, other elements support the conclusion that the petitioner and the individual convicted are one and the same (see, Matter of Gordon F., 54 AD2d 650). The petitioner also had notice of the charges rendered against him by the Division. Charge one in the parole violation report did not specify intentional assault, as petitioner alleges.

The certified transcript was also properly admitted under the business record exception (CPLR 4518; Erecto Corp. v State of New York, 29 AD2d 728, 729). We also note that the matter was not rendered moot merely because petitioner completed his sentence (Matter of Biondo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 60 NY2d 832). Concur — Sullivan, J. R, Carro, Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Related

Williams v. New York State Board of Parole
225 A.D.2d 490 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Melendez v. New York State Division of Parole
225 A.D.2d 935 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Sykes
167 Misc. 2d 588 (New York Supreme Court, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 A.D.2d 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/justiano-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-1993.