Laporta v. New York State Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Laporta v. New York State Board

251 A.D.2d 119, 672 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6951

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

DecidedJune 16, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 119 (Laporta v. New York State Board) 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

Laporta v. New York State Board, 251 A.D.2d 119, 672 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6951 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Determination of respondent Board of Parole of the State of New York, dated June 29, 1995, which, after an administrative hearing, revoked petitioner’s parole, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred by order of Supreme Court, Bronx County [George Friedman, J.], entered January 30, 1996) dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, including properly received hearsay (see, Matter of Williams v New York State Bd. of Parole, 225 AD2d 490, lv denied 88 NY2d 810). In light of the circumstance that there was substantial evidence that the complainant was unavailable to testify, we find no due process violation in the admission of the parole officer’s testimony as to what she had said (compare, People ex rel. McGee v Walters, 62 NY2d 317, 323). Concur— Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Determination of respondent Board of Parole of the State of New York, dated June 29, 1995, which, after an administrative hearing, revoked petitioner’s parole, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred by order of Supreme Court, Bronx County [George Friedman, J.], entered January 30, 1996) dismissed, without costs.

Respondent’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, including properly received hearsay (see, Matter of Williams v New York State Bd. of Parole, 225 AD2d 490, lv denied 88 NY2d 810). In light of the circumstance that there was substantial evidence that the complainant was unavailable to testify, we find no due process violation in the admission of the parole officer’s testimony as to what she had said (compare, People ex rel. McGee v Walters, 62 NY2d 317, 323). Concur— Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 119, 672 N.Y.S.2d 743, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laporta-v-new-york-state-board-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack