People ex rel. Khan v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Khan v. New York State Board of Parole

168 A.D.2d 888, 564 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15740

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A.D.2d 888 (People ex rel. Khan v. New York State Board 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. Khan v. New York State Board of Parole, 168 A.D.2d 888, 564 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15740 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Beisner, J.), entered December 14, 1989 [889]*889in Dutchess County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for, inter alia, failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Upon being denied parole, petitioner’s remedy was to take an administrative appeal to the appeals unit of the State Division of Parole (see, 9 NYCRR 8006.1). Since petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, Supreme Court properly dismissed his petition (see, People ex rel. Cotton v Rodriguez, 123 AD2d 338, 339; Matter of Ortiz v Hammock, 96 AD2d 735). Finally, contrary to his contention, petitioner had no expectation of release because his parole was conditioned upon deportation. Since that did not occur, he was required to be returned to the custody of the Department of Correctional Services (see, Executive Law § 259-i [2] [d] [ii]).

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Beisner, J.), entered December 14, 1989 [889]*889in Dutchess County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for, inter alia, failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Upon being denied parole, petitioner’s remedy was to take an administrative appeal to the appeals unit of the State Division of Parole (see, 9 NYCRR 8006.1). Since petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, Supreme Court properly dismissed his petition (see, People ex rel. Cotton v Rodriguez, 123 AD2d 338, 339; Matter of Ortiz v Hammock, 96 AD2d 735). Finally, contrary to his contention, petitioner had no expectation of release because his parole was conditioned upon deportation. Since that did not occur, he was required to be returned to the custody of the Department of Correctional Services (see, Executive Law § 259-i [2] [d] [ii]).

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 888, 564 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-khan-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack