Stokes v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stokes v. State

72 A.D.2d 606, 420 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13725

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.2d 606 (Stokes v. State) 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

Stokes v. State, 72 A.D.2d 606, 420 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent dated March 28, 1978 which denied petitioner’s request for parole, he appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered June 9, 1978, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The court mistakenly stated the standard set forth in the repealed sections of the Correction Law and held that the Parole Board had complied therewith. However, an examination of the minutes of petitioner’s hearing before the Parole Board shows that the board satisfied the relevant provisions of the Executive Law. Thus, the judgment which dismissed the petition should be affirmed. Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Mangano, 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 to review a determination of the respondent dated March 28, 1978 which denied petitioner’s request for parole, he appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, entered June 9, 1978, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The court mistakenly stated the standard set forth in the repealed sections of the Correction Law and held that the Parole Board had complied therewith. However, an examination of the minutes of petitioner’s hearing before the Parole Board shows that the board satisfied the relevant provisions of the Executive Law. Thus, the judgment which dismissed the petition should be affirmed. Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Mangano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 606, 420 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stokes-v-state-nyappdiv-1979.