People ex rel. Davidson v. Henderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Davidson v. Henderson

54 A.D.2d 602, 387 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13991

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 602 (People ex rel. Davidson v. Henderson) 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. Davidson v. Henderson, 54 A.D.2d 602, 387 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13991 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In this habeas corpus proceeding relator contends that the reasons given by the Board of Parole in denying him parole are insufficient to comply with the requirements of subdivision 6 of section 214 of the Correction Law and fail to satisfy constitutional due process guarantees. He seeks release from custody. Special Term disallowed the petition. Habeas corpus is not the proper procedure to raise this issue and we treat the matter as a CPLR article 78 proceeding (Matter of Greene v Smith, 52 AD2d 292, app dismd 40 NY2d 826; CPLR 103, subd [e]). The reasons furnished by the Board of Parole are: "(1) less than adequate disciplinary record; (2) type of crime&emdash;Assault with Attempt Rape; (3) adverse D.A. letter; (4) long serious alcoholic problem; (5) long assaultive criminal record in which you’ve obtained five convictions.” The reasons furnished, other than the adverse District Attorney’s letter, are sufficient (see Matter of Watkins v Caldwell, 54 AD2d 82). (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga Supreme Court&emdash;habeas corpus.) Present&emdash;Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Mahoney and Dillon, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: In this habeas corpus proceeding relator contends that the reasons given by the Board of Parole in denying him parole are insufficient to comply with the requirements of subdivision 6 of section 214 of the Correction Law and fail to satisfy constitutional due process guarantees. He seeks release from custody. Special Term disallowed the petition. Habeas corpus is not the proper procedure to raise this issue and we treat the matter as a CPLR article 78 proceeding (Matter of Greene v Smith, 52 AD2d 292, app dismd 40 NY2d 826; CPLR 103, subd [e]). The reasons furnished by the Board of Parole are: "(1) less than adequate disciplinary record; (2) type of crime&emdash;Assault with Attempt Rape; (3) adverse D.A. letter; (4) long serious alcoholic problem; (5) long assaultive criminal record in which you’ve obtained five convictions.” The reasons furnished, other than the adverse District Attorney’s letter, are sufficient (see Matter of Watkins v Caldwell, 54 AD2d 82). (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga Supreme Court&emdash;habeas corpus.) Present&emdash;Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Mahoney and Dillon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 602, 387 N.Y.S.2d 493, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-davidson-v-henderson-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack