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

199 A.D.2d 561, 608 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12255
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 27, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 199 A.D.2d 561 (People ex rel. Portee 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. Portee v. New York State Division of Parole, 199 A.D.2d 561, 608 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12255 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), entered December 17, 1992, which, after a hearing, discharged the petitioner and vacated his parole violation warrant.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the proceeding is dismissed, and the warrant is reinstated.

Initially, we note that the conflicting assertions contained in the parties’ briefs regarding the status of a subsequent parole revocation proceeding against the petitioner make it impossible to determine whether this appeal is academic.

"When reviewing a determination of the Parole Board to revoke parole, a court may only 'examine the record to determine if the required procedural rules were followed and if there is any evidence which, if believed, would support the Parole Board’s determination, but the court may not make its own determinations based on its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses’ ” (People ex rel. Lee v New York State Dept. of Correction, 163 AD2d 883, quoting People ex rel. Walker v Hammock, 78 AD2d 369, 371; see also, People ex rel. Shabazz v LaVeglia, 179 AD2d 498, 499).

We find that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Division of Parole’s determination that the petitioner, by his own actions, was responsible for his failure to comply with the special condition of his parole. Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Sellers v. Stanford
2016 NY Slip Op 7198 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Layne v. New York State Board of Parole
256 A.D.2d 990 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People ex rel. Brazeau v. McLaughlin
233 A.D.2d 724 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
199 A.D.2d 561, 608 N.Y.S.2d 110, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-portee-v-new-york-state-division-of-parole-nyappdiv-1993.