Thompson v. New York State Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thompson v. New York State Division of Parole

171 A.D.2d 909, 567 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2614

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 171 A.D.2d 909 (Thompson v. New York State Division 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

Thompson v. New York State Division of Parole, 171 A.D.2d 909, 567 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2614 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cheeseman, J.), entered September 19, 1990 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to compel respondents to recalculate his term of imprisonment.

Upon petitioner’s conviction for a subsequent crime, his parole was revoked by operation of law (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [d] [iii]; Matter of Froats v Rodriguez, 157 AD2d 981, Iv denied 75 NY2d 710). He now claims that the revocation [910]*910was improper because he was not "notified in writing that his release [was] revoked”, as required by Executive Law § 259-i (3) (d) (iii). However, the record shows that petitioner did in fact receive sufficient written notice of the revocation and any lack of "official” notification in no way prejudiced him (see, People ex rel. Knowles v Smith, 54 NY2d 259, 265; Matter of Cotto v LeFevre, 149 AD2d 838). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cheeseman, J.), entered September 19, 1990 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to compel respondents to recalculate his term of imprisonment.

Upon petitioner’s conviction for a subsequent crime, his parole was revoked by operation of law (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [d] [iii]; Matter of Froats v Rodriguez, 157 AD2d 981, Iv denied 75 NY2d 710). He now claims that the revocation [910]*910was improper because he was not "notified in writing that his release [was] revoked”, as required by Executive Law § 259-i (3) (d) (iii). However, the record shows that petitioner did in fact receive sufficient written notice of the revocation and any lack of "official” notification in no way prejudiced him (see, People ex rel. Knowles v Smith, 54 NY2d 259, 265; Matter of Cotto v LeFevre, 149 AD2d 838). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 909, 567 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-new-york-state-division-of-parole-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack