Sinceno v. Riley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sinceno v. Riley

215 A.D.2d 395, 626 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4713

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

DecidedMay 1, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 395 (Sinceno v. Riley) 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

Sinceno v. Riley, 215 A.D.2d 395, 626 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4713 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In a habeas corpus proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, inter alia, to recalculate the petitioner’s prison sentence, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated October 8, 1992, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the dates on which he would be eligible for parole and conditional release, and the maximum expiration date of his sentence, were properly calculated in accordance with the method authorized by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Sparago v New York State Bd. of Parole (71 NY2d 943, 945-946).

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In a habeas corpus proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, inter alia, to recalculate the petitioner’s prison sentence, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated October 8, 1992, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the dates on which he would be eligible for parole and conditional release, and the maximum expiration date of his sentence, were properly calculated in accordance with the method authorized by the Court of Appeals in Matter of Sparago v New York State Bd. of Parole (71 NY2d 943, 945-946).

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 395, 626 N.Y.S.2d 976, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sinceno-v-riley-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack