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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

68 A.D.3d 1390, 889 N.Y.2d 875

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 68 A.D.3d 1390 (People ex rel. Griffith 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. Griffith v. New York State Division of Parole, 68 A.D.3d 1390, 889 N.Y.2d 875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

While on parole from a sentence imposed for his conviction of rape in the first degree, petitioner was charged with several parole violations stemming from, as relevant here, his refusal to participate in a required sex offender treatment program. At a parole revocation hearing, petitioner pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to comply with instructions from his parole officer, after which his parole was revoked and a 20-month time assess[1391]*1391ment was imposed. Thereafter, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding challenging the parole revocation determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and petitioner appeals.

We affirm. Habeas corpus relief is inappropriate where, as here, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he or she exhausted the available administrative remedies (see People ex rel. Arlola v Sears, 53 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 710 [2008]; People ex rel. De Marta v Sears, 31 AD3d 918, 918-919 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 715 [2006]). It is undisputed that petitioner failed to perfect his administrative appeal and, therefore, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.

Cardona, EJ., Spain, Rose, Malone Jr. and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

While on parole from a sentence imposed for his conviction of rape in the first degree, petitioner was charged with several parole violations stemming from, as relevant here, his refusal to participate in a required sex offender treatment program. At a parole revocation hearing, petitioner pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to comply with instructions from his parole officer, after which his parole was revoked and a 20-month time assess[1391]*1391ment was imposed. Thereafter, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding challenging the parole revocation determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and petitioner appeals.

We affirm. Habeas corpus relief is inappropriate where, as here, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he or she exhausted the available administrative remedies (see People ex rel. Arlola v Sears, 53 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 710 [2008]; People ex rel. De Marta v Sears, 31 AD3d 918, 918-919 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 715 [2006]). It is undisputed that petitioner failed to perfect his administrative appeal and, therefore, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.

Cardona, EJ., Spain, Rose, Malone Jr. and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 1390, 889 N.Y.2d 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-griffith-v-new-york-state-division-of-parole-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack