Matter of Williams v. Evans

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Williams v. Evans

129 A.D.3d 1408, 11 N.Y.S.3d 747

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

DecidedJune 25, 2015

Docket519536

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 129 A.D.3d 1408 (Matter of Williams 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 Williams v. Evans, 129 A.D.3d 1408, 11 N.Y.S.3d 747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this *1409 Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Board of Parole which revoked petitioner’s parole.

Petitioner was convicted of attempted burglary in the second degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of five years together with five years of postrelease supervision. Shortly after his release on parole in 2012, petitioner was charged, as is relevant here, with violating the conditions of his release when he allegedly called and repeatedly texted a former girlfriend who had a no contact order of protection against him. Following a hearing, petitioner was found guilty, his parole was revoked, and he was ordered held for 24 months. When no timely decision was rendered on petitioner’s administrative appeal, he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. “A determination to revoke parole will be confirmed if the procedural requirements were followed and there is evidence which, if credited, would support such determination” (Ma tter of Toomer v Warden of Adirondack Corr. Facility, 97 AD3d 868, 868 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Here, the former girlfriend testified regarding petitioner’s contact with her, noting, among other things, that he identified himself by name, identified property he wanted returned to him and referred to her by a nickname no one used. Moreover, petitioner’s probation officer testified that the call and texts received originated from a telephone number provided by petitioner for his case file. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the testimony presented provided substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner violated the conditions of his parole release (see Matter of McQueen v New York State Bd. of Parole, 118 AD3d 1238, 1239 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 907 [2014]; Matter of Toomer v Warden of Adirondack Corr. Facility, 97 AD3d at 869). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and are without merit.

Peters, P.J., Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this *1409 Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Board of Parole which revoked petitioner’s parole.

Petitioner was convicted of attempted burglary in the second degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of five years together with five years of postrelease supervision. Shortly after his release on parole in 2012, petitioner was charged, as is relevant here, with violating the conditions of his release when he allegedly called and repeatedly texted a former girlfriend who had a no contact order of protection against him. Following a hearing, petitioner was found guilty, his parole was revoked, and he was ordered held for 24 months. When no timely decision was rendered on petitioner’s administrative appeal, he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. “A determination to revoke parole will be confirmed if the procedural requirements were followed and there is evidence which, if credited, would support such determination” (Ma tter of Toomer v Warden of Adirondack Corr. Facility, 97 AD3d 868, 868 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Here, the former girlfriend testified regarding petitioner’s contact with her, noting, among other things, that he identified himself by name, identified property he wanted returned to him and referred to her by a nickname no one used. Moreover, petitioner’s probation officer testified that the call and texts received originated from a telephone number provided by petitioner for his case file. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the testimony presented provided substantial evidence to support the determination that petitioner violated the conditions of his parole release (see Matter of McQueen v New York State Bd. of Parole, 118 AD3d 1238, 1239 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 907 [2014]; Matter of Toomer v Warden of Adirondack Corr. Facility, 97 AD3d at 869). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and are without merit.

Peters, P.J., Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.3d 1408, 11 N.Y.S.3d 747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-williams-v-evans-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack