Home/New York Court of Appeals/Lindsay v. New York State Board of Parole

Lindsay v. New York State Board of Parole

400 N.E.2d 1335, 48 N.Y.2d 883, 424 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2505
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 11, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 400 N.E.2d 1335 (Lindsay v. New York State Board of Parole) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lindsay v. New York State Board of Parole, 400 N.E.2d 1335, 48 N.Y.2d 883, 424 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2505 (N.Y. 1979).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with [884]*884costs, the petition granted, and the parole violation charges dismissed.

Petitioner commenced this article 78 proceeding to vacate parole violation charges lodged against him. Although the alleged violations occurred in 1973, no final revocation hearing had been held at the time this proceeding was instituted in 1977. However, a parole eligibility hearing on a new conviction was conducted earlier in 1977, more than four years after the alleged parole violations. The question is whether the eligibility hearing renders academic the failure to hold a final revocation hearing.

Preliminarily, the appeal is not moot, contrary to respondent’s contention. The impact of the parole violation charges does not end with petitioner’s release from prison, but may continue to affect matters such as the maximum parole expiration date. Thus, the relief sought in this article 78 proceeding might well lead to an earlier termination of parole supervision.

- On the merits, we agree that the failure to hold a timely revocation hearing requires dismissal of the parole violation charges (Matter of Piersma v Henderson, 44 NY2d 982; People ex rel. Walsh v Vincent, 40 NY2d 1049). That a parole eligibility hearing was eventually conducted is irrelevant. Due to its different nature and scope, the eligibility hearing could not serve as a substitute for the final revocation hearing. To the extent that the memorandum in People ex rel. Schmidt v La Vallee (39 NY2d 886) may be interpreted as holding otherwise, it is disapproved.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Related

Matter of Abrams v. Stanford
2017 NY Slip Op 3744 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People ex rel. McPherson v. Williams
71 A.D.3d 1599 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People ex rel. Maldonado v. Williams
67 A.D.3d 1328 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Fuller v. Berbary
13 A.D.3d 1152 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Parsons v. Chairman of New York State Division of Parole
249 A.D.2d 616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Gray v. Travis
239 A.D.2d 631 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Williams v. Cornelius
563 N.E.2d 15 (New York Court of Appeals, 1990)
People ex rel. McKee v. Meloni
161 A.D.2d 1214 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Orlando v. Smith
115 A.D.2d 1015 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
People ex rel. Frisbie v. Hammock
112 A.D.2d 721 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Soto v. New York State Board of Parole
107 A.D.2d 693 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Alvarez v. Sanchez
105 A.D.2d 1114 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Newcomb v. New York State Board of Parole
88 A.D.2d 1098 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
Goodwin v. Hammock
502 F. Supp. 756 (S.D. New York, 1981)
People ex rel. Gonzales v. Dalsheim
417 N.E.2d 493 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Gooden v. Hammock
78 A.D.2d 639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
400 N.E.2d 1335, 48 N.Y.2d 883, 424 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindsay-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-ny-1979.