Oliveras v. Travis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oliveras v. Travis

295 A.D.2d 519, 745 N.Y.S.2d 428, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6618

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

DecidedJune 17, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 295 A.D.2d 519 (Oliveras v. Travis) 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

Oliveras v. Travis, 295 A.D.2d 519, 745 N.Y.S.2d 428, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Board of Parole, dated January 27, 2000, denying the petitioner’s request to be released on parole, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated January 9, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner has been released on parole. Therefore, the appeal has been rendered academic. Under the circumstances, we find that this case does not present a question that would warrant an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714; Matter of Wilson v Russi, 211 AD2d 683). Florio, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien and Adams, 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 review a determination of the New York State Board of Parole, dated January 27, 2000, denying the petitioner’s request to be released on parole, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated January 9, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner has been released on parole. Therefore, the appeal has been rendered academic. Under the circumstances, we find that this case does not present a question that would warrant an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714; Matter of Wilson v Russi, 211 AD2d 683). Florio, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 519, 745 N.Y.S.2d 428, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliveras-v-travis-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack