Ryder v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ryder v. New York State Board of Parole

87 A.D.2d 891, 449 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16402

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

DecidedApril 26, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 87 A.D.2d 891 (Ryder 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

Ryder v. New York State Board of Parole, 87 A.D.2d 891, 449 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16402 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the New York State Board of Parole which denied the petitioner his release on parole, the appeal, as limited by the [892]*892appellant’s brief, is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Delaney, J.), dated September 8, 1981, as granted the application to the extent of directing a “new Board appearance to be held in January, 1982, at which time any and all new evidence relating to the psychotherapy progress of [the] petitioner [may] be heard”. Judgment reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and petition dismissed in its entirety. No impropriety on the part of the Board of Parole having been shown, it was improper for the court to accelerate the date of petitioner’s next scheduled release hearing (see Kaminsky v Hammock, 76 AD2d 758). Mollen, P. J., Weinstein, Gulotta and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the New York State Board of Parole which denied the petitioner his release on parole, the appeal, as limited by the [892]*892appellant’s brief, is from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Delaney, J.), dated September 8, 1981, as granted the application to the extent of directing a “new Board appearance to be held in January, 1982, at which time any and all new evidence relating to the psychotherapy progress of [the] petitioner [may] be heard”. Judgment reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and petition dismissed in its entirety. No impropriety on the part of the Board of Parole having been shown, it was improper for the court to accelerate the date of petitioner’s next scheduled release hearing (see Kaminsky v Hammock, 76 AD2d 758). Mollen, P. J., Weinstein, Gulotta and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.2d 891, 449 N.Y.S.2d 529, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryder-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack