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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 26, 1960·Published

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.

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

10 A.D.2d 841 (People ex rel. Conklin v. New York State Division of Parole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related