Marquez v. New York State Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marquez v. New York State Division of Parole

118 A.D.2d 860, 500 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54714

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.2d 860 (Marquez v. New York State Division of Parole) 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

Marquez v. New York State Division of Parole, 118 A.D.2d 860, 500 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Division of Parole, which affirmed a determination, made after a hearing, to revoke the petitioner’s parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Burchell, J.), dated August 23, 1984, which dismissed the proceeding.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The hearing officer’s findings that the petitioner had violated his parole by failing to make office reports and by failing to inform his parole officer that he had been arrested were supported by the preponderance of the evidence, and, therefore, must be sustained (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f], [x]; 9 [861]*861NYCRR 8005.19 [e]). Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Kooper, 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 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Division of Parole, which affirmed a determination, made after a hearing, to revoke the petitioner’s parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Burchell, J.), dated August 23, 1984, which dismissed the proceeding.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The hearing officer’s findings that the petitioner had violated his parole by failing to make office reports and by failing to inform his parole officer that he had been arrested were supported by the preponderance of the evidence, and, therefore, must be sustained (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f], [x]; 9 [861]*861NYCRR 8005.19 [e]). Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.2d 860, 500 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marquez-v-new-york-state-division-of-parole-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack