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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

53 A.D.2d 705, 386 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13471

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

DecidedJune 28, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 705 (People ex rel. Williams 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. Williams v. New York State Board of Parole, 53 A.D.2d 705, 386 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13471 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 10, 1976, as denied (1) a motion to preclude the use of certain statements and (2) the application for a writ of habeas corpus. Order and judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. On the record before us it is clear that the parole revocation hearing was held within a reasonable time after petitioner was taken into custody. Petitioner’s right to a prompt hearing was, therefore, not violated. We have examined the other arguments raised by petitioner and find them to be without merit. Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin, Shapiro and Titone, 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, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 10, 1976, as denied (1) a motion to preclude the use of certain statements and (2) the application for a writ of habeas corpus. Order and judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. On the record before us it is clear that the parole revocation hearing was held within a reasonable time after petitioner was taken into custody. Petitioner’s right to a prompt hearing was, therefore, not violated. We have examined the other arguments raised by petitioner and find them to be without merit. Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Rabin, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 705, 386 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-williams-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-1976.