Williams v. New York State Board of Parole

225 A.D.2d 490, 639 N.Y.2d 819, 639 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3258
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 28, 1996·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

[491]*491This matter was not rendered moot merely because the maximum term of petitioner’s sentence has expired (Matter of Biondo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 60 NY2d 832; Matter of Justiano v New York State Bd. of Parole, 189 AD2d 566). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, there was substantial evidence, including the properly admitted hearsay testimony (People ex rel. McGee v Walters, 62 NY2d 317), adduced at the parole revocation hearing that the vehicle he was driving was stolen, that he knew it was stolen and that he lacked authorization to use it (300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

Williams v. New York State Board of Parole, 225 A.D.2d 490, 639 N.Y.2d 819, 639 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

225 A.D.2d 490 (Williams v. New York State Board of Parole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mack v. Alexander
61 A.D.3d 1222 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People ex rel. Fryer v. Beaver
292 A.D.2d 876 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Laporta v. New York State Board
251 A.D.2d 119 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)