People ex rel. Ariola v. Sears

53 A.D.3d 1001, 862 N.Y.S.2d 635
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 31, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 53 A.D.3d 1001 (People ex rel. Ariola v. Sears) 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
People ex rel. Ariola v. Sears, 53 A.D.3d 1001, 862 N.Y.S.2d 635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

[1002]*1002Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered September 5, 2007 in Franklin County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Following a final parole revocation hearing in May 2007, petitioner’s parole was revoked and a 24-month delinquent time assessment was imposed based upon his alleged failure to cooperate in a mental health/substance abuse evaluation. Petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding challenging his detention, contending that he was violated for failing to comply with an “unapproved” condition of his parole and, hence, the violation and his subsequent detention were illegal. Supreme Court, sua sponte, denied the petition based upon petitioner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. This appeal ensued.

We affirm. Habeas corpus relief is inappropriate where, as here, the claimed error could have been addressed upon an administrative appeal (see People ex rel. De Marta v Sears, 31 AD3d 918 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 715 [2006]; People ex rel. Wethington v Beaver, 306 AD2d 945 [2003]). The underlying petition was silent as to whether an administrative appeal had been perfected or whether any resulting decision had been rendered and, therefore, Supreme Court properly denied the petition on that basis. Moreover, even if petitioner’s purported constitutional claims might otherwise “justify a departure from the general rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies” (People ex rel. Greany v Travis, 269 AD2d 666, 666 [2000], lv denied 94 NY2d 765 [2000], habeas corpus relief nonetheless is unavailable as such claims, even if meritorious, would not entitle petitioner to immediate release (see id. at 667; see also People ex rel. Wethington v Beaver, 306 AD2d at 946; People ex rel. Joyce v New York State Div. of Parole, 249 AD2d 638 [1998]).

Spain, J.P., Carpinello, Rose, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

People ex rel. Amato v. Perez
107 A.D.3d 1259 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
GONZALEZ, MICHAEL v. SHERIFF, WAYNE COUNTY
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
People ex rel. Gonzalez v. Wayne County Sheriff
96 A.D.3d 1698 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People ex rel. D'Adamo v. Artus
85 A.D.3d 1459 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People ex rel. Griffith v. New York State Division of Parole
68 A.D.3d 1390 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 A.D.3d 1001, 862 N.Y.S.2d 635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-ariola-v-sears-nyappdiv-2008.