Williams v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 490 (Williams v. New York State Board 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

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).

Pincite

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

[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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 490, 639 N.Y.2d 819, 639 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack