People ex rel. Pyclik v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Pyclik v. Smith

78 A.D.2d 1008, 434 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13788

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 78 A.D.2d 1008 (People ex rel. Pyclik v. Smith) 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. Pyclik v. Smith, 78 A.D.2d 1008, 434 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: See People ex rel. Dutcher v New York State Bd. of Parole (71 AD2d 963, app dsmd 48 NY2d 799) and People ex rel. Spinks v Dillon (69 AD2d 368, app dsmd 48 NY2d 1025). Section 259-0 of the Executive Law does not provide for final revocation hearings. Relator was serving a sentence in a foreign State for a crime committed there, and there was no way before the end of that commitment that he could have been returned to New York for a final revocation hearing. Relator was not in a “compact institution” and section 259-n (subd 1, par [d]) of the Executive Law has no application in this situation (see People ex rel. Gonzales v Dalsheim, 76 AD2d 952). (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming Supreme Court— habeas corpus.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: See People ex rel. Dutcher v New York State Bd. of Parole (71 AD2d 963, app dsmd 48 NY2d 799) and People ex rel. Spinks v Dillon (69 AD2d 368, app dsmd 48 NY2d 1025). Section 259-0 of the Executive Law does not provide for final revocation hearings. Relator was serving a sentence in a foreign State for a crime committed there, and there was no way before the end of that commitment that he could have been returned to New York for a final revocation hearing. Relator was not in a “compact institution” and section 259-n (subd 1, par [d]) of the Executive Law has no application in this situation (see People ex rel. Gonzales v Dalsheim, 76 AD2d 952). (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming Supreme Court— habeas corpus.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Schnepp, Callahan, Doerr and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 1008, 434 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-pyclik-v-smith-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack