Whitehead v. Russi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Whitehead v. Russi

201 A.D.2d 825, 607 N.Y.S.2d 751, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1131

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 825 (Whitehead v. Russi) 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

Whitehead v. Russi, 201 A.D.2d 825, 607 N.Y.S.2d 751, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Duskas, J.), entered March 5, 1993 in St. Lawrence County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to, inter alia, review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole.

Petitioner’s application should have been dismissed due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies; the fact that petitioner may have ultimately perfected his administrative appeal does not absolve him of this requirement or validate this petition nunc pro tunc. In any event, were we to reach the merits we would find that the determination denying petitioner’s request for parole should be upheld. The Board’s decision was not only sufficiently detailed to inform petitioner [826]*826of the reasons for the denial of parole, but it satisfied the requirements of Executive Law § 259-i and Correction Law § 805. Consequently, the determination is not subject to judicial intervention. Nor do we find the determination terminating his participation in the work release program to be violative of any statutory requirements.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Casey and Weiss, 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 (Duskas, J.), entered March 5, 1993 in St. Lawrence County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to, inter alia, review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole.

Petitioner’s application should have been dismissed due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies; the fact that petitioner may have ultimately perfected his administrative appeal does not absolve him of this requirement or validate this petition nunc pro tunc. In any event, were we to reach the merits we would find that the determination denying petitioner’s request for parole should be upheld. The Board’s decision was not only sufficiently detailed to inform petitioner [826]*826of the reasons for the denial of parole, but it satisfied the requirements of Executive Law § 259-i and Correction Law § 805. Consequently, the determination is not subject to judicial intervention. Nor do we find the determination terminating his participation in the work release program to be violative of any statutory requirements.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 825, 607 N.Y.S.2d 751, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitehead-v-russi-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack