Nunez v. New York State Parole Division

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nunez v. New York State Parole Division

284 A.D.2d 333, 725 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5629

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

DecidedJune 4, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 333 (Nunez v. New York State Parole Division) 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

Nunez v. New York State Parole Division, 284 A.D.2d 333, 725 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5629 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to vacate a parole warrant for failure to timely hold a parole revocation hearing, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated May 11, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The period of time within which the respondent had to act did not begin to run until the petitioner was released from Federal custody. Only then could the petitioner be held in the respondent’s custody exclusively pursuant to the warrant he is now challenging. Since it is clear that this had not yet occurred when the petition was brought, the petition was premature, and therefore, properly dismissed (see, People ex rel. Matthews v New York State Div. of Parole, 95 NY2d 640). Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, 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 to vacate a parole warrant for failure to timely hold a parole revocation hearing, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated May 11, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The period of time within which the respondent had to act did not begin to run until the petitioner was released from Federal custody. Only then could the petitioner be held in the respondent’s custody exclusively pursuant to the warrant he is now challenging. Since it is clear that this had not yet occurred when the petition was brought, the petition was premature, and therefore, properly dismissed (see, People ex rel. Matthews v New York State Div. of Parole, 95 NY2d 640). Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 333, 725 N.Y.S.2d 883, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nunez-v-new-york-state-parole-division-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack