People ex rel. Gonzales v. New York State Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Gonzales v. New York State Division of Parole

112 A.D.2d 1018, 493 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52227

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

DecidedAugust 12, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 112 A.D.2d 1018 (People ex rel. Gonzales v. New York State Division of Parole) 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. Gonzales v. New York State Division of Parole, 112 A.D.2d 1018, 493 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52227 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the appeals are from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), dated January 12, 1984, which granted the petition and writ, vacated the parole revocation warrant and restored petitioner to parole status and (2) as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated March 1, 1984, as upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination.

Appeal from the judgment dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Said judgment was superseded by the order, made upon reargument.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, judgment vacated, parole revocation warrant reinstated, proceeding dismissed, and petitioner is directed to surrender himself to respondent Superintendent of Queensboro Correctional Facility for a final parole revocation hearing.

On October 1, 1983, petitioner was observed by an experienced police officer handing what appeared to be a white glassine envelope to an unnamed person in an area rampant with narcotics activities. Petitioner was found to be in possession of 24 glassine envelopes containing a substance alleged to be cocaine. Under the circumstances, it was error for Criminal Term to have concluded that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was insufficient to give rise to probable cause to believe that petitioner had committed acts which would constitute a violation of parole (see, People ex rel. Calloway v Skinner, 33 NY2d 23, 31). Mangano, J. P., Brown, O’Connor 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, the appeals are from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), dated January 12, 1984, which granted the petition and writ, vacated the parole revocation warrant and restored petitioner to parole status and (2) as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated March 1, 1984, as upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination.

Appeal from the judgment dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Said judgment was superseded by the order, made upon reargument.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, judgment vacated, parole revocation warrant reinstated, proceeding dismissed, and petitioner is directed to surrender himself to respondent Superintendent of Queensboro Correctional Facility for a final parole revocation hearing.

On October 1, 1983, petitioner was observed by an experienced police officer handing what appeared to be a white glassine envelope to an unnamed person in an area rampant with narcotics activities. Petitioner was found to be in possession of 24 glassine envelopes containing a substance alleged to be cocaine. Under the circumstances, it was error for Criminal Term to have concluded that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was insufficient to give rise to probable cause to believe that petitioner had committed acts which would constitute a violation of parole (see, People ex rel. Calloway v Skinner, 33 NY2d 23, 31). Mangano, J. P., Brown, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 1018, 493 N.Y.S.2d 19, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-gonzales-v-new-york-state-division-of-parole-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack