Rice v. Hammock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rice v. Hammock

99 A.D.2d 644, 472 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16877

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 99 A.D.2d 644 (Rice v. Hammock) 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

Rice v. Hammock, 99 A.D.2d 644, 472 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding respondent appeals from a judgment granting petitioner a de novo parole release hearing. Supreme Court held that a new hearing is required because the Parole Board’s decision fails to recite that consideration was given to the factors enumerated in the applicable statute (see Executive Law, § 259-i, subd 2, par [c]). We reverse. The record of the parole release hearing demonstrates that the board had before it all of the information required by the statute to be considered, and the decision set forth in detail the board’s reasons for denying parole (see Executive Law, § 259-i, subd 2, par [a]; Matter Collins v 52 NY2d 798). from of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Fudeman, J. — art 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed and petition dismissed. Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding respondent appeals from a judgment granting petitioner a de novo parole release hearing. Supreme Court held that a new hearing is required because the Parole Board’s decision fails to recite that consideration was given to the factors enumerated in the applicable statute (see Executive Law, § 259-i, subd 2, par [c]). We reverse. The record of the parole release hearing demonstrates that the board had before it all of the information required by the statute to be considered, and the decision set forth in detail the board’s reasons for denying parole (see Executive Law, § 259-i, subd 2, par [a]; Matter Collins v 52 NY2d 798). from of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Fudeman, J. — art 78.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 644, 472 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-hammock-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack