People ex rel. Tuff v. Walters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Tuff v. Walters

111 A.D.2d 838, 490 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50092

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 10, 1985·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Slifkin, J.), entered January 29, 1982, which dismissed the proceeding and denied the writ.

Appeal dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

Since petitioner has already been released from state prison, he is not entitled to habeas corpus relief (People ex rel. Julio v Walters, 58 NY2d 881; People ex rel. Giles v Walters, 90 AD2d 801; People ex rel. Bovian v Johnson, 103 AD2d 813; People ex rel. Davidson v Walters, 100 AD2d 917). However, we note that even without including the time that petitioner was in Federal custody, the record conclusively demonstrates that petitioner was not given the required final parole revocation hearing [839] within 90 days of his waiver of a preliminary parole revocation hearing (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [i]; People ex rel. Gonzales v Dalsheim, 52 NY2d 9). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, O’Con-nor and Brown, 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 (Slifkin, J.), entered January 29, 1982, which dismissed the proceeding and denied the writ.

Appeal dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

Since petitioner has already been released from state prison, he is not entitled to habeas corpus relief (People ex rel. Julio v Walters, 58 NY2d 881; People ex rel. Giles v Walters, 90 AD2d 801; People ex rel. Bovian v Johnson, 103 AD2d 813; People ex rel. Davidson v Walters, 100 AD2d 917). However, we note that even without including the time that petitioner was in Federal custody, the record conclusively demonstrates that petitioner was not given the required final parole revocation hearing [839] within 90 days of his waiver of a preliminary parole revocation hearing (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [i]; People ex rel. Gonzales v Dalsheim, 52 NY2d 9). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, O’Con-nor and Brown, JJ., concur.

People ex rel. Tuff v. Walters, 111 A.D.2d 838, 490 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50092 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

111 A.D.2d 838 (People ex rel. Tuff v. Walters) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related