Rowe v. Russi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rowe v. Russi

198 A.D.2d 714, 605 N.Y.S.2d 967, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10779

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 714 (Rowe v. Russi) 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

Rowe v. Russi, 198 A.D.2d 714, 605 N.Y.S.2d 967, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Travers, J.), entered April 16, 1993 in Albany 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 parole release.

The reasons given by the Board for denying petitioner’s request for parole, which included petitioner’s criminal history, his failure to complete a temporary release program and the fact that he committed his most recent offense while on parole release, were supported by the record and satisfy appropriate statutory requirements. Any remaining contentions raised by petitioner have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit. Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss this proceeding must therefore be affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, 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 (Travers, J.), entered April 16, 1993 in Albany 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 parole release.

The reasons given by the Board for denying petitioner’s request for parole, which included petitioner’s criminal history, his failure to complete a temporary release program and the fact that he committed his most recent offense while on parole release, were supported by the record and satisfy appropriate statutory requirements. Any remaining contentions raised by petitioner have been considered and rejected as lacking in merit. Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss this proceeding must therefore be affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 714, 605 N.Y.S.2d 967, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowe-v-russi-nyappdiv-1993.