Siao-Pao v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Siao-Pao v. New York State Board of Parole

29 A.D.3d 353, 813 N.Y.S.2d 658

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

DecidedMay 9, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 353 (Siao-Pao 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

Siao-Pao v. New York State Board of Parole, 29 A.D.3d 353, 813 N.Y.S.2d 658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered April 12, 2005, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s August 2004 denial of petitioner’s August 2003 parole application, and dismissed the petition, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

The appeal has been rendered moot because petitioner appeared before the Parole Board in August 2005 and received another hearing (Matter of Siao-Pao v Travis, 5 AD3d 150 [2004], [354]*354lv denied 3 NY3d 603 [2004]). In any event, we find that respondent properly considered the factors set forth in Executive Law § 259-i, including such pertinent documents as the presentence report and victim impact statement. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Appeal from order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered April 12, 2005, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent’s August 2004 denial of petitioner’s August 2003 parole application, and dismissed the petition, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs.

The appeal has been rendered moot because petitioner appeared before the Parole Board in August 2005 and received another hearing (Matter of Siao-Pao v Travis, 5 AD3d 150 [2004], [354]*354lv denied 3 NY3d 603 [2004]). In any event, we find that respondent properly considered the factors set forth in Executive Law § 259-i, including such pertinent documents as the presentence report and victim impact statement. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 353, 813 N.Y.S.2d 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siao-pao-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack