People ex rel. Fowler v. Warden of Ossining Correctional Facility

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Fowler v. Warden of Ossining Correctional Facility

74 A.D.2d 885, 426 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10677

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 74 A.D.2d 885 (People ex rel. Fowler v. Warden of Ossining Correctional Facility) 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. Fowler v. Warden of Ossining Correctional Facility, 74 A.D.2d 885, 426 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10677 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered May 8, 1979, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner, while not denying knowledge of the decision on his final parole revocation hearing, complains only that he was not served with a copy of the decision until four months and eight days after the hearing. While this delay is not to be condoned (cf. People ex rel. Levy v Dalsheim, 66 AD2d 827), petitioner makes no claim of prejudice by reason of the delay in receiving the decision. Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Weinstein, 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, entered May 8, 1979, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner, while not denying knowledge of the decision on his final parole revocation hearing, complains only that he was not served with a copy of the decision until four months and eight days after the hearing. While this delay is not to be condoned (cf. People ex rel. Levy v Dalsheim, 66 AD2d 827), petitioner makes no claim of prejudice by reason of the delay in receiving the decision. Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.2d 885, 426 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-fowler-v-warden-of-ossining-correctional-facility-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack