Morse v. Fogg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morse v. Fogg

52 A.D.2d 926, 383 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12779

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

DecidedMay 17, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 926 (Morse v. Fogg) 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

Morse v. Fogg, 52 A.D.2d 926, 383 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 inter alia to secure additional jail time credit, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated September 4, 1975, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We affirm here inasmuch as we may do so without prejudice to petitioner’s substantial rights. However, we steadfastly reaffirm our observation in Matter of Beattie v New York State Bd. of Parole (47 AD2d 656, affd 39 NY2d 445) that the board’s continued indifference toward the provision of prompt revocation hearings may result in the vacatur, with prejudice, of warrants in all such cases (cf. People ex rel. Jones-el v Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, 51 AD2d 1049; People ex rel. Walsh v Vincent, 50 AD2d 914; People ex rel. Allah v Warden, Bronx House of Detention, 47 AD2d 485). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Margett, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 inter alia to secure additional jail time credit, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated September 4, 1975, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We affirm here inasmuch as we may do so without prejudice to petitioner’s substantial rights. However, we steadfastly reaffirm our observation in Matter of Beattie v New York State Bd. of Parole (47 AD2d 656, affd 39 NY2d 445) that the board’s continued indifference toward the provision of prompt revocation hearings may result in the vacatur, with prejudice, of warrants in all such cases (cf. People ex rel. Jones-el v Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, 51 AD2d 1049; People ex rel. Walsh v Vincent, 50 AD2d 914; People ex rel. Allah v Warden, Bronx House of Detention, 47 AD2d 485). Cohalan, Acting P. J., Margett, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 926, 383 N.Y.S.2d 404, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morse-v-fogg-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack