People ex rel. Rainey v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Rainey v. New York State Board of Parole

53 A.D.2d 623, 384 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13322

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

DecidedJune 7, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 623 (People ex rel. Rainey v. New York State Board 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. Rainey v. New York State Board of Parole, 53 A.D.2d 623, 384 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated February 27, 1976, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Under the circumstances outlined herein, appellant failed to demonstrate that he was denied his right to a prompt parole revocation hearing. The time spans complained of were partially attributable to his own conduct, including his change of mind with respect to counsel, and were not unreasonable. The record on this appeal also does not reveal any prejudice accruing to petitioner by reason of the time lapse before the final revocation hearing. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Margett, Damiani and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated February 27, 1976, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Under the circumstances outlined herein, appellant failed to demonstrate that he was denied his right to a prompt parole revocation hearing. The time spans complained of were partially attributable to his own conduct, including his change of mind with respect to counsel, and were not unreasonable. The record on this appeal also does not reveal any prejudice accruing to petitioner by reason of the time lapse before the final revocation hearing. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Margett, Damiani and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 623, 384 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-rainey-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-1976.