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

138 A.D.2d 549, 526 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2882
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 14, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 138 A.D.2d 549 (People ex rel. MacKelvey 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. MacKelvey v. New York State Division of Parole, 138 A.D.2d 549, 526 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the New York State Division of Parole and the Superintendent of the Queensboro Correctional Facility appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.), dated January 20, 1987, which sustained the writ and vacated a parole revocation warrant.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is dismissed, the parole violation warrant is reinstated, and that the matter is remitted to the New York State Division of Parole for further proceedings.

There is no requirement in Executive Law § 259-i (3) that a parole officer must prepare a violation of release report within 30 days after a parolee reports that he has been arrested on a new charge. The regulations promulgated pursuant to Executive Law § 259-c (4) similarly contain no such requirement (see, 9 NYCRR 8000.1 et seq.). The internal guidelines established by the New York State Division of Parole are not promulgated pursuant to an express grant of legislative authority (cf., Matter of Lehman v Board of Educ., 82 AD2d 832) and do not have the force of law. We therefore disapprove of the contrary holdings expressed in People ex rel. Vallejo v New York State Bd. of Parole (130 Misc 2d 488) and People ex rel. Thompson v Wilmot (124 Misc 2d 688).

The judgment under review should therefore be reversed, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed, and the matter should be remitted to the New York State Division of Parole for further parole revocation proceedings. Mangano, J. P., Lawrence, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sutherland v. Evans
82 A.D.3d 1428 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Perez v. Evans
76 A.D.2d 1130 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Bratton v. New York State Board of Parole
23 A.D.3d 879 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People ex rel. Kinard v. New York State Division
173 Misc. 2d 760 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)
People ex rel. Lord Organic Allah v. New York State Board of Parole
158 A.D.2d 328 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 A.D.2d 549, 526 N.Y.S.2d 135, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-mackelvey-v-new-york-state-division-of-parole-nyappdiv-1988.