MATTER OF WILLIAMS v. Smith

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF WILLIAMS v. Smith

529 N.E.2d 417, 72 N.Y.2d 939, 533 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 1650

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 6, 1988

DocketAppeal 1 ; Appeal 2

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 529 N.E.2d 417 (MATTER OF WILLIAMS v. Smith) 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. Smith, 529 N.E.2d 417, 72 N.Y.2d 939, 533 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 1650 (N.Y. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Petitioner claims his parole revocation, based on the violation of one of his conditions of parole, is invalid because the conditions of parole were not filed with the Secretary of State pursuant to Executive Law § 102 and article IV, § 8 of the State Constitution. We disagree. Conditions of parole are not "rules” within the meaning of Executive Law § 102 and, therefore, they need not be filed to be effective. A rule establishes a general standard of conduct which must be obeyed by all those subject to its terms. Its force and authority stems from its enactment as law. The force and authority of a condition of parole, by contrast, is its incorporation in a particular individual’s parole agreement as one of the terms imposed by the Board.

*941 Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), orders affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Petitioner claims his parole revocation, based on the violation of one of his conditions of parole, is invalid because the conditions of parole were not filed with the Secretary of State pursuant to Executive Law § 102 and article IV, § 8 of the State Constitution. We disagree. Conditions of parole are not "rules” within the meaning of Executive Law § 102 and, therefore, they need not be filed to be effective. A rule establishes a general standard of conduct which must be obeyed by all those subject to its terms. Its force and authority stems from its enactment as law. The force and authority of a condition of parole, by contrast, is its incorporation in a particular individual’s parole agreement as one of the terms imposed by the Board.

*941 Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), orders affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

529 N.E.2d 417, 72 N.Y.2d 939, 533 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 1650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-williams-v-smith-ny-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack