People ex rel. Crooks v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Crooks v. New York State Board of Parole

194 A.D.2d 376, 598 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5533

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

DecidedJune 8, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 194 A.D.2d 376 (People ex rel. Crooks v. New York State Board 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. Crooks v. New York State Board of Parole, 194 A.D.2d 376, 598 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5533 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Sackett, J.), entered on or about February 8, 1993, which dismissed petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s contention that he was not afforded a timely final parole revocation hearing upon proper notice is without merit (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [iii]). Adjournment of the final hearing did not require a new 14-day notice to petitioner since the adjourned date did not fall outside the required 90-day period from the probable cause determination (here, the waiver of the preliminary hearing) (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [i]; People ex rel. Mack v Warden, 160 AD2d 592, lv denied 76 NY2d 705). Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, there is no requirement that petitioner be declared delinquent before the "scheduling” of the final revocation hearing (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [d] [i]). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Sackett, J.), entered on or about February 8, 1993, which dismissed petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s contention that he was not afforded a timely final parole revocation hearing upon proper notice is without merit (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [iii]). Adjournment of the final hearing did not require a new 14-day notice to petitioner since the adjourned date did not fall outside the required 90-day period from the probable cause determination (here, the waiver of the preliminary hearing) (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [i]; People ex rel. Mack v Warden, 160 AD2d 592, lv denied 76 NY2d 705). Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, there is no requirement that petitioner be declared delinquent before the "scheduling” of the final revocation hearing (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [d] [i]). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 376, 598 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-crooks-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack