Matter of Polzella v. Evans

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Polzella v. Evans

128 A.D.3d 550, 8 N.Y.S.3d 563

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

DecidedMay 21, 2015

Docket10870 250388/11

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 550 (Matter of Polzella v. Evans) 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

Matter of Polzella v. Evans, 128 A.D.3d 550, 8 N.Y.S.3d 563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered February 14, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination dated December 29, 2010, finding that petitioner violated the conditions of his parole, revoking his parole and imposing on him an assessment of 24 months of additional imprisonment, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, respondent’s determination annulled, and petitioner reinstated to parole.

Respondent was required to determine petitioner’s mental competency before the parole revocation hearing could proceed since it appears that petitioner is not mentally competent and was incapable of participating in the parole revocation hearing or of assisting his counsel in doing so (see Matter of Lopez v Evans, 25 NY3d 199 [2015]). Concur — Sweeny, J.R, Renwick, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered February 14, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent’s determination dated December 29, 2010, finding that petitioner violated the conditions of his parole, revoking his parole and imposing on him an assessment of 24 months of additional imprisonment, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, respondent’s determination annulled, and petitioner reinstated to parole.

Respondent was required to determine petitioner’s mental competency before the parole revocation hearing could proceed since it appears that petitioner is not mentally competent and was incapable of participating in the parole revocation hearing or of assisting his counsel in doing so (see Matter of Lopez v Evans, 25 NY3d 199 [2015]). Concur — Sweeny, J.R, Renwick, Feinman and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 550, 8 N.Y.S.3d 563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-polzella-v-evans-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack