Szucs v. Recore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Szucs v. Recore

209 A.D.2d 803, 618 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11143

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 803 (Szucs v. Recore) 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

Szucs v. Recore, 209 A.D.2d 803, 618 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11143 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Torraca, J.), entered March 3, 1994 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent rescinding petitioner’s participation in the temporary release program.

Based on the evidence presented, which included information that petitioner had made repeated threats against his family, it was not irrational for respondent to rescind petitioner’s prior approval to participate in the temporary release program. Because temporary release is a discretionary program and a privilege, petitioner had no due process entitlement to continued participation in the program. Any remaining contentions raised by petitioner have been considered and found to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Torraca, J.), entered March 3, 1994 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent rescinding petitioner’s participation in the temporary release program.

Based on the evidence presented, which included information that petitioner had made repeated threats against his family, it was not irrational for respondent to rescind petitioner’s prior approval to participate in the temporary release program. Because temporary release is a discretionary program and a privilege, petitioner had no due process entitlement to continued participation in the program. Any remaining contentions raised by petitioner have been considered and found to be lacking in merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 803, 618 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/szucs-v-recore-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack