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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 4, 2001·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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.

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

284 A.D.2d 333 (Nunez v. New York State Parole Division) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related