The Matter of Jorge L. Linares v. Andrea W. Evans

New York Court of Appeals

The Matter of Jorge L. Linares v. Andrea W. Evans

42 N.E.3d 212, 26 N.Y.3d 1012, 20 N.Y.S.3d 542

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 22, 2015

Docket124

StatusPublished

Cited by39 cases

This text of 42 N.E.3d 212 (The Matter of Jorge L. Linares v. Andrea W. Evans) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Matter of Jorge L. Linares v. Andrea W. Evans, 42 N.E.3d 212, 26 N.Y.3d 1012, 20 N.Y.S.3d 542 (N.Y. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner challenges the validity and potential application of certain regulations of the Board of Parole which address risks and needs assessments and related matters (see 9 NYCRR 8002.3 [a]). However, the Board promulgated those regulations *1014 after its determination here and has not had an opportunity to consider petitioner’s arguments. Given the impact that a determination of petitioner’s claims will certainly have in this and future cases, the more prudent course is to leave the propriety of the regulations to be raised in the first instance before the Board (see Walton v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 8 NY3d 186, 197 [2007]; Schiavone v City of New York, 92 NY2d 308, 317 [1998]; see also Matter of Red Hook / Gowanus Chamber of Commerce v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 5 NY3d 452, 461-462 [2005]). Because, under the particular circumstances of this case, none of petitioner’s statutory and regulatory claims are reviewable on appeal at this juncture, we express no opinion on the merits of those claims.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Pigott, Rivera, AbdusSalaam and Fahey concur; Judge Stein taking no part.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner challenges the validity and potential application of certain regulations of the Board of Parole which address risks and needs assessments and related matters (see 9 NYCRR 8002.3 [a]). However, the Board promulgated those regulations *1014 after its determination here and has not had an opportunity to consider petitioner’s arguments. Given the impact that a determination of petitioner’s claims will certainly have in this and future cases, the more prudent course is to leave the propriety of the regulations to be raised in the first instance before the Board (see Walton v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 8 NY3d 186, 197 [2007]; Schiavone v City of New York, 92 NY2d 308, 317 [1998]; see also Matter of Red Hook / Gowanus Chamber of Commerce v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 5 NY3d 452, 461-462 [2005]). Because, under the particular circumstances of this case, none of petitioner’s statutory and regulatory claims are reviewable on appeal at this juncture, we express no opinion on the merits of those claims.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Pigott, Rivera, AbdusSalaam and Fahey concur; Judge Stein taking no part.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 N.E.3d 212, 26 N.Y.3d 1012, 20 N.Y.S.3d 542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-matter-of-jorge-l-linares-v-andrea-w-evans-ny-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack