Maple v. Hammock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maple v. Hammock

96 A.D.2d 735, 465 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19319

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

DecidedJuly 11, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A.D.2d 735 (Maple v. Hammock) 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

Maple v. Hammock, 96 A.D.2d 735, 465 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously reversed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The judgment appealed from, nullifying a decision of the Board of Parole dated January 5,1982, must be reversed. Although not argued on appeal, the record before us discloses in a document attached to the petition and headed “Statement of Appeals Unit Findings” that the appeals unit reversed the board’s original determination and afforded petitioner a new parole release appearance. Petitioner, therefore, is already entitled to a de novo hearing and there was no need for judicial intervention. We add only that in the conduct of future proceedings, the principles enunciated in Matter of Collins v Hammock (96 AD2d 733) with regard to a verbatim record (Executive Law, § 259-i, subd 6) must be complied with. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Sedita, J. — art 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously reversed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The judgment appealed from, nullifying a decision of the Board of Parole dated January 5,1982, must be reversed. Although not argued on appeal, the record before us discloses in a document attached to the petition and headed “Statement of Appeals Unit Findings” that the appeals unit reversed the board’s original determination and afforded petitioner a new parole release appearance. Petitioner, therefore, is already entitled to a de novo hearing and there was no need for judicial intervention. We add only that in the conduct of future proceedings, the principles enunciated in Matter of Collins v Hammock (96 AD2d 733) with regard to a verbatim record (Executive Law, § 259-i, subd 6) must be complied with. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Sedita, J. — art 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.2d 735, 465 N.Y.S.2d 342, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maple-v-hammock-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack