People ex rel. Stewart v. Foreman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Stewart v. Foreman

123 A.D.2d 524, 506 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60299

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 A.D.2d 524 (People ex rel. Stewart v. Foreman) 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. Stewart v. Foreman, 123 A.D.2d 524, 506 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, and writ of habeas corpus dismissed. Memorandum: There is no merit to relator’s claim that he was deprived of the right to counsel at his preliminary parole revocation hearing (People ex rel. Clanton v Smith, 105 AD2d 1123, lv denied 64 NY2d 606; see also, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [c] [iii], [v]; 9 NYCRR 8005.5 [b]; People ex rel. Calloway v Skinner, 33 NY2d 23, 31). Relator’s remaining claim, that he was not given timely notice of the parole violation charges against him (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [c] [iii]), is not supported by the record. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.—habeas [525]*525corpus.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, and writ of habeas corpus dismissed. Memorandum: There is no merit to relator’s claim that he was deprived of the right to counsel at his preliminary parole revocation hearing (People ex rel. Clanton v Smith, 105 AD2d 1123, lv denied 64 NY2d 606; see also, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [c] [iii], [v]; 9 NYCRR 8005.5 [b]; People ex rel. Calloway v Skinner, 33 NY2d 23, 31). Relator’s remaining claim, that he was not given timely notice of the parole violation charges against him (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [c] [iii]), is not supported by the record. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.—habeas [525]*525corpus.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 524, 506 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-stewart-v-foreman-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack