McNeill v. Coughlin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McNeill v. Coughlin

212 A.D.2d 922, 623 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1605

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 922 (McNeill v. Coughlin) 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

McNeill v. Coughlin, 212 A.D.2d 922, 623 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1605 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Harris, J.), entered March 22, 1994 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review respondent’s calculation of petitioner’s term of imprisonment.

Petitioner, sentenced in 1985 to IVi to 15 years’ imprisonment and paroled in 1992, was subsequently returned to prison for a parole violation. Pursuant to Correction Law § 803 (5), upon his return to incarceration for the parole violation petitioner forfeited good time allowances he had previously accumulated, and was limited in his accumulation of good time to one third of the time remaining on his maximum sentence. This resulted in a recomputation of his conditional release date. Petitioner contends that he was not given notice of the provisions of Correction Law § 803 as required by Correction Law § 803 (6). Respondent, however, submitted evidence that petitioner did receive adequate notice. Further, review of respondent’s calculations establishes that they comply with statutory requirements. We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Harris, J.), entered March 22, 1994 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review respondent’s calculation of petitioner’s term of imprisonment.

Petitioner, sentenced in 1985 to IVi to 15 years’ imprisonment and paroled in 1992, was subsequently returned to prison for a parole violation. Pursuant to Correction Law § 803 (5), upon his return to incarceration for the parole violation petitioner forfeited good time allowances he had previously accumulated, and was limited in his accumulation of good time to one third of the time remaining on his maximum sentence. This resulted in a recomputation of his conditional release date. Petitioner contends that he was not given notice of the provisions of Correction Law § 803 as required by Correction Law § 803 (6). Respondent, however, submitted evidence that petitioner did receive adequate notice. Further, review of respondent’s calculations establishes that they comply with statutory requirements. We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 922, 623 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcneill-v-coughlin-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack