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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

55 A.D.2d 660, 390 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15419

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.2d 660 (People ex rel. Sito 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. Sito v. New York State Board of Parole, 55 A.D.2d 660, 390 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15419 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated December 7, 1976, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. There was ample proof to support the conclusion of respondent that petitioner was guilty of certain misconduct and that he had violated substantial requirements of the conditions of his parole, thus justifying its revocation. There is [661]*661no absolute right to have counsel assigned to aid a person in determining whether to waive a preliminary hearing (see People ex rel. Calloway v Skinner, 33 NY2d 23). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, 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, Dutchess County, dated December 7, 1976, which dismissed the proceeding. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. There was ample proof to support the conclusion of respondent that petitioner was guilty of certain misconduct and that he had violated substantial requirements of the conditions of his parole, thus justifying its revocation. There is [661]*661no absolute right to have counsel assigned to aid a person in determining whether to waive a preliminary hearing (see People ex rel. Calloway v Skinner, 33 NY2d 23). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Damiani and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 660, 390 N.Y.S.2d 130, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-sito-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack