Mack v. Travis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mack v. Travis

283 A.D.2d 700, 723 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4346

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

DecidedMay 3, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 700 (Mack v. Travis) 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

Mack v. Travis, 283 A.D.2d 700, 723 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4346 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Malone, Jr., J.), entered August 16, 2000 in [701]*701Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Petitioner challenges the denial of his request for parole release on the ground that he was denied due process by the parole interview being conducted by use of a two-way television. Contrary to petitioner’s assertions, the use of teleconferencing technology in conducting a parole interview “is consistent with the statutory requirement that petitioner be ‘personally interview[ed]’ ” (Matter of Vanier v Travis, 274 AD2d 797, 798, quoting Executive Law § 259-i [2] [a]). Here, although petitioner was not interviewed by the Board of Parole, this resulted from petitioner’s refusal to participate in the hearing despite his objection to the use of the teleconferencing having previously been addressed.

Furthermore, inasmuch as the Board considered relevant statutory requirements in denying petitioner’s request for parole release, the decision will not be disturbed (see, Matter of Serna v New York State Div. of Parole, 279 AD2d 684).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Malone, Jr., J.), entered August 16, 2000 in [701]*701Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Petitioner challenges the denial of his request for parole release on the ground that he was denied due process by the parole interview being conducted by use of a two-way television. Contrary to petitioner’s assertions, the use of teleconferencing technology in conducting a parole interview “is consistent with the statutory requirement that petitioner be ‘personally interview[ed]’ ” (Matter of Vanier v Travis, 274 AD2d 797, 798, quoting Executive Law § 259-i [2] [a]). Here, although petitioner was not interviewed by the Board of Parole, this resulted from petitioner’s refusal to participate in the hearing despite his objection to the use of the teleconferencing having previously been addressed.

Furthermore, inasmuch as the Board considered relevant statutory requirements in denying petitioner’s request for parole release, the decision will not be disturbed (see, Matter of Serna v New York State Div. of Parole, 279 AD2d 684).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 700, 723 N.Y.S.2d 905, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mack-v-travis-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack