Moye v. New York Executive Department Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moye v. New York Executive Department Board of Parole

210 A.D.2d 711, 621 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12698

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 15, 1994·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Board of Parole which revoked petitioner’s parole.

Petitioner, on parole while serving a sentence of 5 to 10 years, was found to have violated his parole by threatening his wife, using cocaine and failing to maintain attendance at an alcohol rehabilitation program. Petitioner’s parole was [712]*712consequently revoked and he was determined to be ineligible for parole for 36 months.

Initially, we find that petitioner’s final parole revocation hearing was timely. Any delay beyond the time allowed for such a hearing was attributable to petitioner’s request for a postponement. Petitioner’s parole officer testified that he heard petitioner threaten his spouse and had ascertained that petitioner had failed to attend his rehabilitation program. In addition, evidence was admitted establishing that petitioner had tested positive for cocaine. We conclude that this evidence constitutes substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination. Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s determination that petitionér not be reconsidered for parole for 36 months.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Adjudged that , the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Board of Parole which revoked petitioner’s parole.

Petitioner, on parole while serving a sentence of 5 to 10 years, was found to have violated his parole by threatening his wife, using cocaine and failing to maintain attendance at an alcohol rehabilitation program. Petitioner’s parole was [712]*712consequently revoked and he was determined to be ineligible for parole for 36 months.

Initially, we find that petitioner’s final parole revocation hearing was timely. Any delay beyond the time allowed for such a hearing was attributable to petitioner’s request for a postponement. Petitioner’s parole officer testified that he heard petitioner threaten his spouse and had ascertained that petitioner had failed to attend his rehabilitation program. In addition, evidence was admitted establishing that petitioner had tested positive for cocaine. We conclude that this evidence constitutes substantial evidence to support the Board’s determination. Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the Board’s determination that petitionér not be reconsidered for parole for 36 months.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Adjudged that , the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Moye v. New York Executive Department Board of Parole, 210 A.D.2d 711, 621 N.Y.S.2d 934, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12698 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

210 A.D.2d 711 (Moye v. New York Executive Department Board of Parole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related