Lovell v. New York State Div. of Parole, 40 A.D.3d 1166 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
Lovell v. New York State Div. of Parole, 40 A.D.3d 1166 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Rivera v. Stanford
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply—as evidenced by the fact that the sought-after sentencing minutes ultimately were located and considered (compare Matter of Santiago v New York State Div. of Parole, 78 AD3d 953, 953-954 [2010], Matter of Lovell v New York State Div. of Parole, 40 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2007], and Matter of Standley v New York State Div. of Parole, 34 AD3d 1169, 1170-1171 [2006], with Matter of Standley v New York State Div. of Parole, 40 AD3d 1344, 1345-1346 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Hawthorne v. Stanford
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Supreme Court’s disposition required specific relief in a manner that continues to affect the parties’ respective rights and will recur and evade review unless it is addressed (see Matter of Lebron v Alexander, 68 AD3d 1476, 1477 [2009]; Matter of Lovell v New York State Div. of Parole, 40 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2007]). 3 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Duffy v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The court further directed the Board to “explicitly address] ]” the “degree to which [the victim impact statements] figure in the Board’s decision.” Respondents appeal. * Inasmuch as the sentencing minutes — previously believed to have been lost — were located after the Board’s decision, directing a de novo hearing for the Board to consider such minutes was not error under these unique circumstances (see Matter of Smith v New York State Div. of Parole, 64 AD3d 1030, 1031 [2009]; Matter of Lovell v New York State Div. of Parole, 40 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2007]; Matter of Standley v Ne…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lebron v. Alexander
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
It therefore falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Lovell v New York State Div. of Parole, 40 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2007]; Matter of Standley v New York State Div. of Parole, 34 AD3d 1169, 1170 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blasich v. New York State Board of Parole
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
While respondent is ordinarily required to obtain and consider sentencing minutes in determining whether to grant parole (see Matter of Smith v New York State Div. of Parole, 64 AD3d 1030, 1032 [2009]; Matter of Carter v Dennison, 42 AD3d 779 [2007]; Matter of Lovell v New York State Div. of Parole, 40 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2007]; Matter of Standley v New York State Div. of Parole, 34 AD3d 1169, 1171 [2006]), the failure to do so does not necessarily mandate a new hearing if, as here, those minutes are unavailable (see Matter of Freeman v Alexander, 65 AD3d 1429, 1430 [2009]; Matter of Cartagena v …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Freeman v. Alexander
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
As this is not a case where the Board failed to consider sentencing minutes which were available (see Matter of Lovell v New York State Div. of Parole, 40 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2007]; Matter of Standley v New York State Div. of Parole, 34 AD3d 1169, 1170-1171 [2006]), we cannot say—on the record before us— that the Board’s inability to consider the sentencing minutes rendered its decision irrational so as to border on impropriety (see Matter of Cartagena v Alexander, 64 AD3d 841, 842 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. New York State Division of Parole
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Accordingly, we reverse Supreme Court’s judgment and remit this matter to the Board for a de novo hearing at which the sentencing minutes, if available, are to be considered, together with any recommendations that may have been made by the sentencing court (see Matter of Carter v Dennison, 42 AD3d 779 [2007]; Matter of Lovell v New York State Div. of Parole, 40 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2007]; Matter of Standley v New York State Div. of Parole, 34 AD3d 1169, 1170-1171 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Serrano v. Dennison
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
The transcript of the hearing reveals that the Board had the sentencing minutes before it and reviewed them in compliance with the statutory requirements (compare Matter of Lovell v New York State Div. of Parole, 40 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carter v. Dennison
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Inasmuch as the Board is required to consider such information in making parole release determinations (see Matter of Lovell v New York State Div. of Parole, 40 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2007]; Matter of Standley v New York State Div. of Parole, 34 AD3d 1169, 1170 [2006]), we agree with respondent that the matter must be remitted for a de novo hearing.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Larry Lovell
v.
New York State Division of Parole
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 3, 2007.
40 A.D.3d 1166
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ferradino, J.), entered July 12, 2006 in Albany County, which, inter alia, dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Following his conviction in 1984 of murder in the second degree, petitioner was sentenced to a prison term of 20 years to life. Initially denied parole release in 2002, the Board of Parole again denied release in November 2004 and directed that[*1167] petitioner be held for an additional 24 months. On administrative appeal the determination was affirmed, prompting this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and petitioner now appeals.

One of the issues raised by petitioner was that the Board of Parole failed to obtain and consider the sentencing minutes. Although Supreme Court rejected this assertion, the Board, in fact, was required to obtain and consider those minutes, as well as the sentencing court’s recommendations, prior to making its determination (see Executive Law § 259-i; Matter of Standley v New York State Div. of Parole, 34 AD3d 1169, 1170 [2006]; Matter of McLaurin v New York State Bd. of Parole, 27 AD3d 565, 566 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 708 [2006]). It is noted that petitioner reappeared in November 2006 during the pendency of the appeal and the Board again failed to consider the sentencing minutes. Although such a reappearance would normally have necessitated dismissal of the current appeal as moot, an exception to the mootness doctrine is presented herein inasmuch as a substantial issue is involved, i.e., the failure to comply with the provisions of Executive Law § 259-i, which continues to evade review (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]; Matter of Standley v New York State Div. of Parole, supra at 1170). Furthermore, although the Court has been informed that the Board now intends to hold a new hearing in which the transcript of petitioner’s sentencing proceeding will be considered, the hearing has, as of yet, not been held. Thus, the matter has still not been rendered moot (cf. Matter of Stanley v Dennison, 20 AD3d 790, 790 [2005]; Matter of Moore v Travis, 304 AD2d 1001, 1002 [2003], affd 2 NY3d 748 [2004]).

In light of the absence of the sentencing minutes and the lack of consideration thereof by the Board, Supreme Court’s judgment must be reversed and the matter remitted to the Board for a de novo hearing during which the sentencing minutes and the recommendations of the sentencing court shall be considered by the Board (see Matter of Standley v New York State Div. of Parole, supra at 1170-1171).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Board of Parole which is directed to obtain petitioner’s sentencing minutes and the recommendations of the sentencing court within 30 days of this Court’s decision and to conduct a de novo hearing within 45 days of the date thereof.