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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

208 A.D.2d 352, 616 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9266

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 352 (People ex rel. Courtney 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. Courtney v. New York State Division of Parole, 208 A.D.2d 352, 616 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9266 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dorothy Chin Brandt, J.), entered on or about August 9, 1993, dismissing appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that appellant was not entitled to the five-day notice requirement contained in Executive Law § 259-i (3) (c) (iii), since Executive Law § 259-i (3) (c) (i) eliminated the necessity for a preliminary revocation hearing in appellant’s case, due to his 1992 conviction in North Carolina while still under parole supervision in New York (Matter of Gonzalez v New York State Div. of Parole, 176 AD2d 237). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dorothy Chin Brandt, J.), entered on or about August 9, 1993, dismissing appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that appellant was not entitled to the five-day notice requirement contained in Executive Law § 259-i (3) (c) (iii), since Executive Law § 259-i (3) (c) (i) eliminated the necessity for a preliminary revocation hearing in appellant’s case, due to his 1992 conviction in North Carolina while still under parole supervision in New York (Matter of Gonzalez v New York State Div. of Parole, 176 AD2d 237). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 352, 616 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-courtney-v-new-york-state-division-of-parole-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack