People v. Bradford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bradford

269 A.D.2d 316, 704 N.Y.S.2d 464, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2058

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 316 (People v. Bradford) 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 v. Bradford, 269 A.D.2d 316, 704 N.Y.S.2d 464, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2058 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Adlerberg, J.), entered March 30, 1999, which denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, having been convicted of a new crime committed while he was on parole, had no right to a preliminary parole revocation hearing (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [c] [i]; see also, People ex rel. Johnson v Russi, 258 AD2d 346, appeal dismissed 93 NY2d 945). We do not reach petitioner’s arguments with respect to the determination rendered after the final parole revocation hearing since that determination postdates the order from which the present appeal is taken (see, supra). Were we to reach those arguments, however, we would find them unavailing. We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Adlerberg, J.), entered March 30, 1999, which denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner, having been convicted of a new crime committed while he was on parole, had no right to a preliminary parole revocation hearing (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [c] [i]; see also, People ex rel. Johnson v Russi, 258 AD2d 346, appeal dismissed 93 NY2d 945). We do not reach petitioner’s arguments with respect to the determination rendered after the final parole revocation hearing since that determination postdates the order from which the present appeal is taken (see, supra). Were we to reach those arguments, however, we would find them unavailing. We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 316, 704 N.Y.S.2d 464, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bradford-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack