Scarola v. Mailler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scarola v. Mailler

3 A.D.2d 688, 159 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6647

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 688 (Scarola v. Mailler) 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

Scarola v. Mailler, 3 A.D.2d 688, 159 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Special Term of Albany County denying the petitioner’s application in a proceeding under article 78, directed against the State Board of Parole. The petitioner, who had been imprisoned upon a definite, sentence, was given a reduction of sentence and was released, pursuant to sections 230 and 242 of the Correction Law, subject to the jurisdiction and control of the Parole Board. The petitioner challenges the power of the Parole Board to revoke .the reduction of sentence 'for violation of parole. A reasonable construction of sections 241, 242 and 218 of the Correction Law leads to the conclusion that the board has such power. Order- unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Gibson, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Special Term of Albany County denying the petitioner’s application in a proceeding under article 78, directed against the State Board of Parole. The petitioner, who had been imprisoned upon a definite, sentence, was given a reduction of sentence and was released, pursuant to sections 230 and 242 of the Correction Law, subject to the jurisdiction and control of the Parole Board. The petitioner challenges the power of the Parole Board to revoke .the reduction of sentence 'for violation of parole. A reasonable construction of sections 241, 242 and 218 of the Correction Law leads to the conclusion that the board has such power. Order- unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Gibson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 688, 159 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scarola-v-mailler-nyappdiv-1957.