People ex rel. Miranda v. Henderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Miranda v. Henderson

54 A.D.2d 611, 387 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14007

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 611 (People ex rel. Miranda v. Henderson) 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. Miranda v. Henderson, 54 A.D.2d 611, 387 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14007 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Habeas corpus is not the proper procedural vehicle for prisoners who claim that the board has not complied with subdivision 6 of section 214 of the Correction Law but we treat such petitions as CPLR article 78 proceedings. (Matter of Greene v Smith, 52 AD2d 292, app dsmd 40 NY2d 826; People ex rel. Ganci v Henderson, 54 AD2d 609 [Sept. 24, 1976].) Relator was denied parole on October 14, 1975 for the following reasons: "1. Past failures while under parole supervision. 2. While under supervision committing new serious crime. 3. Your extensive past criminal behavior. 4. Extensive past history of drug addiction.” The reasons advanced are sufficient to comply with the standard set in Matter of Watkins v Caldwell (54 AD2d 42 [Sept. 24, 1976]). (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga Supreme Court&emdash;habeas corpus.) Present&emdash;Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Habeas corpus is not the proper procedural vehicle for prisoners who claim that the board has not complied with subdivision 6 of section 214 of the Correction Law but we treat such petitions as CPLR article 78 proceedings. (Matter of Greene v Smith, 52 AD2d 292, app dsmd 40 NY2d 826; People ex rel. Ganci v Henderson, 54 AD2d 609 [Sept. 24, 1976].) Relator was denied parole on October 14, 1975 for the following reasons: "1. Past failures while under parole supervision. 2. While under supervision committing new serious crime. 3. Your extensive past criminal behavior. 4. Extensive past history of drug addiction.” The reasons advanced are sufficient to comply with the standard set in Matter of Watkins v Caldwell (54 AD2d 42 [Sept. 24, 1976]). (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga Supreme Court&emdash;habeas corpus.) Present&emdash;Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 611, 387 N.Y.S.2d 329, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-miranda-v-henderson-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack