People ex rel. Garcia v. Hammock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Garcia v. Hammock

65 A.D.2d 827, 410 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13720

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

DecidedNovember 27, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.D.2d 827 (People ex rel. Garcia v. Hammock) 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. Garcia v. Hammock, 65 A.D.2d 827, 410 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13720 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated February 10, 1978, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We believe that the Parole Board had sufficient evidence before it to justify its denial of parole to the petitioner. However, it should be noted that the petitioner’s allegation contained in his petition that the Parole Board did not have a report of an up-to-date psychiatric examination of him at the time of the parole eligibility hearing, was not controverted by the Parole Board in its answer. We therefore direct that at any future parole eligibility hearing scheduled for the petitioner, the Parole Board shall be furnished a report of physical, mental and psychiatric examinations of the petitioner, and that such examinations shall be conducted within two months of the hearing. Latham, J. P., Titone, Margett and Hawkins, 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, Dutchess County, dated February 10, 1978, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We believe that the Parole Board had sufficient evidence before it to justify its denial of parole to the petitioner. However, it should be noted that the petitioner’s allegation contained in his petition that the Parole Board did not have a report of an up-to-date psychiatric examination of him at the time of the parole eligibility hearing, was not controverted by the Parole Board in its answer. We therefore direct that at any future parole eligibility hearing scheduled for the petitioner, the Parole Board shall be furnished a report of physical, mental and psychiatric examinations of the petitioner, and that such examinations shall be conducted within two months of the hearing. Latham, J. P., Titone, Margett and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.2d 827, 410 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-garcia-v-hammock-nyappdiv-1978.