People ex rel. Walker v. Sullivan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Walker v. Sullivan

128 A.D.2d 572, 512 N.Y.S.2d 510, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44265

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 128 A.D.2d 572 (People ex rel. Walker v. Sullivan) 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. Walker v. Sullivan, 128 A.D.2d 572, 512 N.Y.S.2d 510, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44265 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding based on an alleged failure to afford the petitioner timely parole revocation hearings, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walsh, J.), entered April 1, 1986, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

By executing a written waiver of his right to a preliminary parole revocation hearing on February 22, 1984, the petitioner effectively waived his right to challenge the respondents’ alleged failure to afford him a timely preliminary hearing as well as his right to relief in consequence of their failure to do so (see, People ex rel. Quinones v New York State Bd. of Parole, 66 NY2d 748; People ex rel. Miller v Walters, 60 NY2d 899; People ex rel. Romero v Johnson, 122 AD2d 240; People ex rel. Linares v Dalsheim, 107 AD2d 728; People ex rel. Hatterson v Walters, 100 AD2d 978). Absent any indication that the peti[573]*573tioner’s waiver was not made knowingly and intelligently, it must be deemed effective (Matter of White v New York State Div. of Parole, 60 NY2d 920, 922). Excluding periods of delay not chargeable to the respondents, a final revocation hearing was held within the 90-day period prescribed by the Executive Law (Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [i]; 9 NYCRR 8005.17 [c] [3]). Accordingly, the proceeding was properly dismissed. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding based on an alleged failure to afford the petitioner timely parole revocation hearings, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Walsh, J.), entered April 1, 1986, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

By executing a written waiver of his right to a preliminary parole revocation hearing on February 22, 1984, the petitioner effectively waived his right to challenge the respondents’ alleged failure to afford him a timely preliminary hearing as well as his right to relief in consequence of their failure to do so (see, People ex rel. Quinones v New York State Bd. of Parole, 66 NY2d 748; People ex rel. Miller v Walters, 60 NY2d 899; People ex rel. Romero v Johnson, 122 AD2d 240; People ex rel. Linares v Dalsheim, 107 AD2d 728; People ex rel. Hatterson v Walters, 100 AD2d 978). Absent any indication that the peti[573]*573tioner’s waiver was not made knowingly and intelligently, it must be deemed effective (Matter of White v New York State Div. of Parole, 60 NY2d 920, 922). Excluding periods of delay not chargeable to the respondents, a final revocation hearing was held within the 90-day period prescribed by the Executive Law (Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [i]; 9 NYCRR 8005.17 [c] [3]). Accordingly, the proceeding was properly dismissed. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 572, 512 N.Y.S.2d 510, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-walker-v-sullivan-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack