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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

75 A.D.2d 860, 432 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11481

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

DecidedMay 12, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 75 A.D.2d 860 (People ex rel. Landy 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. Landy v. New York State Division of Parole, 75 A.D.2d 860, 432 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11481 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 28, 1979, dismissing his petition. On this court’s own motion, the matter is hereby converted to a CPLR article 78 proceeding in light of the sentences subsequently imposed on petitioner for independent crimes (see CPLR 103, subd [c]; Matter of Piersma v Henderson, 60 AD2d 1001, affd 44 NY2d 982). Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The record adequately supports the determination that it was petitioner’s choice to refuse to appear at the scheduled parole revocation hearing. Cohalan, J. P., Margett, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 28, 1979, dismissing his petition. On this court’s own motion, the matter is hereby converted to a CPLR article 78 proceeding in light of the sentences subsequently imposed on petitioner for independent crimes (see CPLR 103, subd [c]; Matter of Piersma v Henderson, 60 AD2d 1001, affd 44 NY2d 982). Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The record adequately supports the determination that it was petitioner’s choice to refuse to appear at the scheduled parole revocation hearing. Cohalan, J. P., Margett, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A.D.2d 860, 432 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-landy-v-new-york-state-division-of-parole-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack