Zuluaga v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zuluaga v. New York State Board of Parole

27 A.D.3d 934, 810 N.Y.S.2d 376

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

DecidedMarch 16, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.3d 934 (Zuluaga 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

Zuluaga v. New York State Board of Parole, 27 A.D.3d 934, 810 N.Y.S.2d 376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cannizzaro, J.), entered July 15, 2005 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Since the January 2004 determination giving rise to this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner has reappeared before respondent and his request for parole release has again been denied. Given petitioner’s subsequent reappearance before respondent in January 2006, the instant matter must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Karo v Travis, 4 AD3d 589 [2004]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, 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 (Cannizzaro, J.), entered July 15, 2005 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Since the January 2004 determination giving rise to this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner has reappeared before respondent and his request for parole release has again been denied. Given petitioner’s subsequent reappearance before respondent in January 2006, the instant matter must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Karo v Travis, 4 AD3d 589 [2004]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 934, 810 N.Y.S.2d 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zuluaga-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack