Montgomery v. Recore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Montgomery v. Recore

217 A.D.2d 777, 629 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7769

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 217 A.D.2d 777 (Montgomery v. Recore) 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

Montgomery v. Recore, 217 A.D.2d 777, 629 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered November 14, 1994 in Albany County, which denied petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request to participate in a temporary release program.

Petitioner is an inmate incarcerated at Adirondack Correctional Facility in Essex County. His application for participation in a temporary release program was denied based upon the serious nature of his crime, his history of recidivism and the risk he posed to community safety. We find that these reasons for denial of petitioner’s application satisfied the statutory requirements.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, 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 (Williams, J.), entered November 14, 1994 in Albany County, which denied petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request to participate in a temporary release program.

Petitioner is an inmate incarcerated at Adirondack Correctional Facility in Essex County. His application for participation in a temporary release program was denied based upon the serious nature of his crime, his history of recidivism and the risk he posed to community safety. We find that these reasons for denial of petitioner’s application satisfied the statutory requirements.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.D.2d 777, 629 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/montgomery-v-recore-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack