MATTER OF WILLIAMS v. Hammock

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF WILLIAMS v. Hammock

443 N.E.2d 472, 57 N.Y.2d 936, 457 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3809

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 21, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 443 N.E.2d 472 (MATTER OF WILLIAMS v. Hammock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals 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. Hammock, 443 N.E.2d 472, 57 N.Y.2d 936, 457 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3809 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the case remitted to Supreme Court for entry of judgment granting the petition, vacating the parole violation warrant, and restoring petitioner to parole on the conditions heretofore in effect,

*938 No timely notice, with accompanying necessary papers, was given to petitioner’s counsel prior to the final revocation hearing held on March 23, 1981, as mandated by section 259-i (subd 3, par [f], els [i], [in]) of the Executive Law and the regulations of the board (9 NYCRR 8005.18 [c]), and the time to hold such hearing expired immediately thereafter. Accordingly, the warrant should have been dismissed (People ex rel. Gonzales v Dalsheim, 52 NY2d 9). Our holding in People ex rel. Martinez v New York State Bd. of Parole (56 NY2d 588) is distinguishable. In that case the requests by the parolee for continuances were responsible in part for the board’s inability to conduct a timely revocation hearing.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of judgment in accordance with the memorandum herein.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the case remitted to Supreme Court for entry of judgment granting the petition, vacating the parole violation warrant, and restoring petitioner to parole on the conditions heretofore in effect,

*938 No timely notice, with accompanying necessary papers, was given to petitioner’s counsel prior to the final revocation hearing held on March 23, 1981, as mandated by section 259-i (subd 3, par [f], els [i], [in]) of the Executive Law and the regulations of the board (9 NYCRR 8005.18 [c]), and the time to hold such hearing expired immediately thereafter. Accordingly, the warrant should have been dismissed (People ex rel. Gonzales v Dalsheim, 52 NY2d 9). Our holding in People ex rel. Martinez v New York State Bd. of Parole (56 NY2d 588) is distinguishable. In that case the requests by the parolee for continuances were responsible in part for the board’s inability to conduct a timely revocation hearing.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of judgment in accordance with the memorandum herein.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 N.E.2d 472, 57 N.Y.2d 936, 457 N.Y.S.2d 224, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-williams-v-hammock-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack