People ex rel. Ruiz v. Leonardo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Ruiz v. Leonardo

175 A.D.2d 964, 573 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11158

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

DecidedAugust 22, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 175 A.D.2d 964 (People ex rel. Ruiz v. Leonardo) 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. Ruiz v. Leonardo, 175 A.D.2d 964, 573 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Berke, J.), entered November 23, 1990 in Washington County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner’s only contention on appeal is that his due process rights were violated because the determination that he violated the conditions of his parole was not made within the 90-day period of Executive Law § 259-i (3) (f) (i). However, the statute does not require that a decision be rendered within the 90-day period, only that the hearing be held within said 90 days. As petitioner’s final revocation hearing was held within 90 days of his probable cause determination, a fact which petitioner admits, there has been compliance with the statute (see, People ex rel. Haskins v Waters, 87 AD2d 657). In addition, petitioner’s notification of the revocation decision within two weeks of the hearing satisfied the "[a]s soon as practicable” standard of 9 NYCRR 8005.20 (f) (see, People ex rel. White v Dillon, 81 AD2d 1037, affd 55 NY2d 672; cf., People ex rel. Knowles v Smith, 54 NY2d 259).

Casey, J. P., Weiss, Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Berke, J.), entered November 23, 1990 in Washington County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner’s only contention on appeal is that his due process rights were violated because the determination that he violated the conditions of his parole was not made within the 90-day period of Executive Law § 259-i (3) (f) (i). However, the statute does not require that a decision be rendered within the 90-day period, only that the hearing be held within said 90 days. As petitioner’s final revocation hearing was held within 90 days of his probable cause determination, a fact which petitioner admits, there has been compliance with the statute (see, People ex rel. Haskins v Waters, 87 AD2d 657). In addition, petitioner’s notification of the revocation decision within two weeks of the hearing satisfied the "[a]s soon as practicable” standard of 9 NYCRR 8005.20 (f) (see, People ex rel. White v Dillon, 81 AD2d 1037, affd 55 NY2d 672; cf., People ex rel. Knowles v Smith, 54 NY2d 259).

Casey, J. P., Weiss, Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 A.D.2d 964, 573 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-ruiz-v-leonardo-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack