Menechino v. Div. of Parole, 258 N.E.2d 84 (N.Y. 1970). · Go Syfert
Search
Menechino v. Div. of Parole, 258 N.E.2d 84 (N.Y. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hunter v. New York State Board of Parole (nyappdiv, 1990-11-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hunter v. New York State Board of Parole
N.Y. App. Div. · 1990 · confidence medium
Despite petitioner’s argument to the contrary, the existence of the constitutional question raised by his ineffective assistance of counsel claim does not warrant a different result (see, Matter of Menechino v Division of Parole, supra, at 838, affg 32 AD2d 761 , revg 57 Misc 2d 865 ).
discussed Cited "see" People ex rel. Linares v. Dalsheim
N.Y. App. Div. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
If the petition is treated as instituting an article 78 proceeding to review and set aside the Parole Board’s determination to revoke petitioner’s parole, the proceeding is barred by the four-month Statute of Limitations (CPLR 217; see Matter of Menechino v Division of Parole, 32 AD2d 761 , affd 26 NY2d 837 ; Matter of Soto v New York State Bd. of Parole, 107 AD2d 693 ).
discussed Cited "see" United States ex rel. Yacobellis v. McKendrick (2×)
E.D.N.Y · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See Menechino v. Division of Parole, 32 A.D.2d 761 , 301 N.Y.S.2d 350 (2d Dep’t.1969), aff’d mem., 26 N.Y.2d 837 , 309 N.Y.S.2d 585 , 285 N.E.2d 84 (1970). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Joseph Menechino
v.
Division of Parole, New York City
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 26, 1970.
258 N.E.2d 84
1970 N.Y. LEXIS 1494
David Rosenberg and Leonard B. Boudin for appellant., Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Hillel Hoffman and Samuel A. Hirshowitz of counsel), for respondents.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

[*838] Order affirmed, without costs, in the following memorandum: The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs, on the sole ground that the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLB article 78 was barred by the four-months period of limitation prescribed (CPLB 217). The court did not reach or consider the petitioner’s argument that he had a constitutional right to be represented by counsel in a parole revocation proceeding. Our determination is, however, without prejudice to any other proceeding which the petitioner may be advised to institute.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson.