People ex rel. Watson v. Hollins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Watson v. Hollins

302 A.D.2d 279, 753 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1529

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 302 A.D.2d 279 (People ex rel. Watson v. Hollins) 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. Watson v. Hollins, 302 A.D.2d 279, 753 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1529 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloif, J.), entered March 19, 2002, which denied petitioner’s [280]*280application for a writ of habeas corpus, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Parole Board’s determination denying petitioner parole was rationally based on the seriousness of petitioner’s crimes (see Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 476). To the extent that petitioner challenges the Board’s 1999 denial of parole, review of that determination is barred by the four-month statute of limitations (see Matter of Carter v State of New York, 95 NY2d 267, 270). We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloif, J.), entered March 19, 2002, which denied petitioner’s [280]*280application for a writ of habeas corpus, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Parole Board’s determination denying petitioner parole was rationally based on the seriousness of petitioner’s crimes (see Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 476). To the extent that petitioner challenges the Board’s 1999 denial of parole, review of that determination is barred by the four-month statute of limitations (see Matter of Carter v State of New York, 95 NY2d 267, 270). We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 279, 753 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-watson-v-hollins-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack