Patterson v. Fischer

104 A.D.3d 1218, 960 N.Y.S.2d 675
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 15, 2013
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 A.D.3d 1218 (Patterson v. Fischer) 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
Patterson v. Fischer, 104 A.D.3d 1218, 960 N.Y.S.2d 675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

[1219]*1219Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County [Mark H. Dadd, A.J.], entered October 3, 2012) to review a determination of respondent. The determination revoked the post-release supervision of petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the determination revoking his period of postrelease supervision and imposing a time assessment of 16 months. “[A] determination to revoke parole [or postrelease supervision] will be confirmed if the procedural requirements were followed and there is evidence which, if credited, would support such determination” (Matter of Graham v Dennison, 46 AD3d 1467, 1467 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Mosley v Dennison, 30 AD3d 975, 976 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 712 [2006]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, “the testimony of petitioner’s parole officer at the hearing before the [Administrative Law Judge] provides substantial evidence to support the determination with respect to the [eight] charges concerning the violations by petitioner of his curfew [and domestic violence conditions]” (Mosley, 30 AD3d at 976; see Graham, 46 AD3d at 1467; see generally People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139 [1985]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Sconiers, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Tambadou v. Annucci
2017 NY Slip Op 4648 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 A.D.3d 1218, 960 N.Y.S.2d 675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-fischer-nyappdiv-2013.