People ex rel. Martinez v. Beaver

8 A.D.3d 1095, 778 N.Y.S.2d 630, 2004 NY Slip Op 5055, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8225
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 14, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 1095 (People ex rel. Martinez v. Beaver) 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. Martinez v. Beaver, 8 A.D.3d 1095, 778 N.Y.S.2d 630, 2004 NY Slip Op 5055, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Michael L. D’Amico, A.J.), entered January 5, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment granted the amended petition, directed respondents to conduct a de novo parole release interview and denied respondents’ motion to dismiss the amended petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the amended petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding challenging the determination of the Parole Board denying him release to parole supervision and ordering that he be held for 18 months. Supreme Court erred in granting the amended petition and denying respondents’ motion to dismiss the amended petition. Petitioner’s administrative appeal was pending at the time this proceeding was commenced, and thus the amended petition should have been dismissed based upon the failure of petitioner to exhaust his administrative remedies (see Matter of Robinson v Bennett, 300 AD2d 715, 716 [2002]; Matter of Wilson v Goord, 269 AD2d 853 [2000]). The record does not support petitioner’s contention that exhaustion is not required because pursuit of the administrative appeal would have been futile (see Matter of Pfaff v Columbia-Greene Community Coll., 99 AD2d 887 [1984]). Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Related

CASTILLO, ELVIS v. ANNUCCI, ANTHONY
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
Castillo v. Annucci
133 A.D.3d 1380 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Toro v. Evans
95 A.D.3d 1573 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People ex rel. McDuffie v. Rabideau
23 A.D.3d 1122 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 A.D.3d 1095, 778 N.Y.S.2d 630, 2004 NY Slip Op 5055, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-martinez-v-beaver-nyappdiv-2004.