Matter of Youngblood v. Stanford

2019 NY Slip Op 1658
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 7, 2019
Docket8632 251642/15
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 1658 (Matter of Youngblood v. Stanford) 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 Youngblood v. Stanford, 2019 NY Slip Op 1658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

Matter of Youngblood v Stanford (2019 NY Slip Op 01658)
Matter of Youngblood v Stanford
2019 NY Slip Op 01658
Decided on March 7, 2019
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on March 7, 2019
Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Tom, Kahn, Gesmer, JJ.

8632 251642/15

[*1]In re Eugene Youngblood, Petitioner-Appellant,

v

Tina M. Stanford, etc., Respondent-Respondent.


Justine M. Luongo, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Kerry Elgarten of counsel), for appellant.

Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General, New York (Amir R. Vora of counsel), for respondent.



Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered on or about May 25, 2017, which dismissed petitioner's application brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Parole imposing a 60-month time assessment following the revocation of parole, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We find that the Hearing Officer neither abused her discretion nor imposed an excessive time assessment by issuing a determination to revoke petitioner's post-release supervision and impose a 60-month time assessment for petitioner's violations of a temporary order of protection, considering his criminal history, and the behavior underlying his parole violations, one of which led to his conviction for second degree criminal contempt (see Matter of Rosa v Fischer, 108 AD3d 1227, 1228 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 855 [2013]; Matter of Isaac v New York State Div. of Parole, 222 AD2d 913, 913 [3d Dept 1995]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MARCH 7, 2019

CLERK



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

Related

Isaac v. New York State Division of Parole
222 A.D.2d 913 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 1658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-youngblood-v-stanford-nyappdiv-2019.