People ex rel. Bruno v. New York State Division

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Bruno v. New York State Division

109 A.D.2d 808, 486 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47313

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 109 A.D.2d 808 (People ex rel. Bruno v. New York State 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

People ex rel. Bruno v. New York State Division, 109 A.D.2d 808, 486 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— In three habeas corpus proceedings which have been consolidated for purposes of appeal, the appeals are from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Kelly, J.), both dated October 21, 1983 (proceedings Nos. 1 and 2), and an amended judgment of the same court, dated October 24, 1983 (proceeding No. 3), which sustained the writs and ordered the petitioners’ immediate restoration to parole.

Judgments and amended judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and petitions dismissed, and the petitioners are directed to surrender themselves to the Superintendent of the Ossining Correctional Facility.

The delay of approximately five weeks in petitioners’ scheduled reappearances before the Parole Board for release consideration following the revocation of their respective paroles did not constitute unreasonable delay warranting their immediate restoration to parole supervision (cf. People ex rel. Matthews v New York State Div. of Parole, 58 NY2d 196, 205).

We pass upon no further issue. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— In three habeas corpus proceedings which have been consolidated for purposes of appeal, the appeals are from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Kelly, J.), both dated October 21, 1983 (proceedings Nos. 1 and 2), and an amended judgment of the same court, dated October 24, 1983 (proceeding No. 3), which sustained the writs and ordered the petitioners’ immediate restoration to parole.

Judgments and amended judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and petitions dismissed, and the petitioners are directed to surrender themselves to the Superintendent of the Ossining Correctional Facility.

The delay of approximately five weeks in petitioners’ scheduled reappearances before the Parole Board for release consideration following the revocation of their respective paroles did not constitute unreasonable delay warranting their immediate restoration to parole supervision (cf. People ex rel. Matthews v New York State Div. of Parole, 58 NY2d 196, 205).

We pass upon no further issue. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 808, 486 N.Y.S.2d 323, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-bruno-v-new-york-state-division-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack