People ex rel. Ellington v. Dalsheim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Ellington v. Dalsheim

70 A.D.2d 669, 417 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12143

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

DecidedMay 28, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 70 A.D.2d 669 (People ex rel. Ellington v. Dalsheim) 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. Ellington v. Dalsheim, 70 A.D.2d 669, 417 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 19, 1978, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. It is well settled that a parole violator is entitled to a prompt parole revocation hearing (Executive Law, § 259-i, subd 3, par [f], cl [i]; People ex rel. Walsh v Vincent, 40 NY2d 1049; Matter of Good v Hammock, 64 AD2d 1011; People ex rel. Royster v Bombard, 55 AD2d 940). This rule however, is of no assistance to petitioner since the record indicates that it was his fault that the revocation hearing was not promptly held. Suozzi, J. P., Lazer, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

— In a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 19, 1978, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. It is well settled that a parole violator is entitled to a prompt parole revocation hearing (Executive Law, § 259-i, subd 3, par [f], cl [i]; People ex rel. Walsh v Vincent, 40 NY2d 1049; Matter of Good v Hammock, 64 AD2d 1011; People ex rel. Royster v Bombard, 55 AD2d 940). This rule however, is of no assistance to petitioner since the record indicates that it was his fault that the revocation hearing was not promptly held. Suozzi, J. P., Lazer, Cohalan and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.2d 669, 417 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-ellington-v-dalsheim-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack