Mandala v. Travis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mandala v. Travis

22 A.D.3d 495, 801 N.Y.S.2d 540

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

DecidedOctober 3, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 495 (Mandala 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

Mandala v. Travis, 22 A.D.3d 495, 801 N.Y.S.2d 540 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel disclosure of records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6), the petitioner appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (West, J.), entered March 26, 2003, as denied, without prejudice, that branch of the petition which was for a new parole release hearing, and (2) an order of the same court (Adler, J.), entered July 29, 2003, which granted the respondents’ application for a ruling that they were not required to furnish certain documents to him.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order is not appealable as of right and we decline to grant leave to appeal (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; Ob] [1]); and it is further,

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

The Supreme Court properly denied, without prejudice, that branch of the petition which was for a new parole release hearing. Crane, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Lifson, 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 disclosure of records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6), the petitioner appeals (1), as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (West, J.), entered March 26, 2003, as denied, without prejudice, that branch of the petition which was for a new parole release hearing, and (2) an order of the same court (Adler, J.), entered July 29, 2003, which granted the respondents’ application for a ruling that they were not required to furnish certain documents to him.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the order is not appealable as of right and we decline to grant leave to appeal (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; Ob] [1]); and it is further,

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

The Supreme Court properly denied, without prejudice, that branch of the petition which was for a new parole release hearing. Crane, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 495, 801 N.Y.S.2d 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mandala-v-travis-nyappdiv-2005.