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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 8, 1993·Published

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.

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

194 A.D.2d 376 (People ex rel. Crooks v. New York State Board of Parole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related