Menechino v. Division of Parole

New York Court of Appeals

Menechino v. Division of Parole

258 N.E.2d 84, 26 N.Y.2d 837, 309 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1494

New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 26, 1970·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

[838]*838Order affirmed, without costs, in the following memorandum: The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs, on the sole ground that the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLB article 78 was barred by the four-months period of limitation prescribed (CPLB 217). The court did not reach or consider the petitioner’s argument that he had a constitutional right to be represented by counsel in a parole revocation proceeding. Our determination is, however, without prejudice to any other proceeding which the petitioner may be advised to institute.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson.

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

[838]*838Order affirmed, without costs, in the following memorandum: The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs, on the sole ground that the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLB article 78 was barred by the four-months period of limitation prescribed (CPLB 217). The court did not reach or consider the petitioner’s argument that he had a constitutional right to be represented by counsel in a parole revocation proceeding. Our determination is, however, without prejudice to any other proceeding which the petitioner may be advised to institute.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson.

Menechino v. Division of Parole, 258 N.E.2d 84, 26 N.Y.2d 837, 309 N.Y.S.2d 585, 1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1494 (N.Y. 1970).

Pincite

258 N.E.2d 84 (Menechino v. Division of Parole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related