Richburg v. New York State Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Richburg v. New York State Division of Parole

14 A.D.3d 737, 786 N.Y.S.2d 746, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 70

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 14 A.D.3d 737 (Richburg v. New York State Division 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

Richburg v. New York State Division of Parole, 14 A.D.3d 737, 786 N.Y.S.2d 746, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 70 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered May 20, 2003 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Since the October 2001 determination giving rise to this proceeding, petitioner has reappeared before the Board of Parole and his request for parole release has again been denied. Given petitioner’s subsequent reappearance before the Board in October 2003, the instant matter must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Baez v Travis, 10 AD3d 778 [2004]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered May 20, 2003 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Since the October 2001 determination giving rise to this proceeding, petitioner has reappeared before the Board of Parole and his request for parole release has again been denied. Given petitioner’s subsequent reappearance before the Board in October 2003, the instant matter must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Baez v Travis, 10 AD3d 778 [2004]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 737, 786 N.Y.S.2d 746, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richburg-v-new-york-state-division-of-parole-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack