People ex rel. Conklin v. New York State Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Conklin v. New York State Division of Parole

10 A.D.2d 841, 199 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10465

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

DecidedApril 26, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 841 (People ex rel. Conklin v. New York State Division of Parole) 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. Conklin v. New York State Division of Parole, 10 A.D.2d 841, 199 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10465 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. This proceeding was erroneously treated toy respondents as an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition states that the “proceeding is initiated under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act * *' * to compel the herein designated respondents to perform the duties specifically enjoined by law.” The petitioner claims that the Parole Board failed to give him a hearing as required by section 218 of the Correction Law before passing upon charges relating to misconduct while a prison inmate. We find that appellant had a hearing -before the board that satisfied the requirements of that section of the Correction Law. Therefore, it is unnecessary to pass upon the scope and extent of judicial review available where a hearing has been had. (Cf. Matter of Hines v. State Board of Parole, 293 N. Y. 254, 257; Matter of Razukas v. New York State Dept. of Correction, 186 Misc. 429, 433, aff’d. 270 App. Div. 1074). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. This proceeding was erroneously treated toy respondents as an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition states that the “proceeding is initiated under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act * *' * to compel the herein designated respondents to perform the duties specifically enjoined by law.” The petitioner claims that the Parole Board failed to give him a hearing as required by section 218 of the Correction Law before passing upon charges relating to misconduct while a prison inmate. We find that appellant had a hearing -before the board that satisfied the requirements of that section of the Correction Law. Therefore, it is unnecessary to pass upon the scope and extent of judicial review available where a hearing has been had. (Cf. Matter of Hines v. State Board of Parole, 293 N. Y. 254, 257; Matter of Razukas v. New York State Dept. of Correction, 186 Misc. 429, 433, aff’d. 270 App. Div. 1074). Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 841, 199 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-conklin-v-new-york-state-division-of-parole-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack