People ex rel. Calvin J. v. Bednosky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Calvin J. v. Bednosky

245 A.D.2d 324, 667 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12036

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 1, 1997·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated August 16, 1995, which dismissed the proceeding.

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

The issue of whether the petitioner was wrongfully denied a preliminary parole revocation hearing was rendered academic by the revocation of his parole pursuant to a final revocation hearing (see, Matter of Griffin v Rodriguez, 187 AD2d 591; People ex rel. Chavis v McCoy, 236 AD2d 892; People ex rel. Wilt v Meloni, 166 AD2d 927; Matter of Collins v Rodriguez, 138 AD2d 809). Moreover, this case presents no facts which would warrant the resolution of this appeal as an exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Stark, J.), dated August 16, 1995, which dismissed the proceeding.

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

The issue of whether the petitioner was wrongfully denied a preliminary parole revocation hearing was rendered academic by the revocation of his parole pursuant to a final revocation hearing (see, Matter of Griffin v Rodriguez, 187 AD2d 591; People ex rel. Chavis v McCoy, 236 AD2d 892; People ex rel. Wilt v Meloni, 166 AD2d 927; Matter of Collins v Rodriguez, 138 AD2d 809). Moreover, this case presents no facts which would warrant the resolution of this appeal as an exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715). Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

People ex rel. Calvin J. v. Bednosky, 245 A.D.2d 324, 667 N.Y.S.2d 262, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12036 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

245 A.D.2d 324 (People ex rel. Calvin J. v. Bednosky) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related