Secore v. Mantello, 176 A.D.2d 1244 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Secore v. Mantello, 176 A.D.2d 1244 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Peterson v. Stanford (nyappdiv, 2017-06-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Peterson v. Stanford
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Petitioner’s additional contentions — that respondents lacked jurisdiction over him by virtue of improper procedures and that he was denied due process of law by the Board’s failure to follow its statutory mandates — were not raised in his administrative appeal, and petitioner therefore has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to them (see Matter of Karlin v Cully, 104 AD3d 1285, 1286 [2013]; Matter of Secore v Mantello, 176 AD2d 1244, 1244 [1991]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Krupa v. Stanford
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
As a preliminary matter, we note that petitioner’s contention that the Board failed to consider his transition accountability plan was not raised in his administrative appeal or in the petition, and thus that contention is not properly before us (see Matter of Secore v Mantello, 176 AD2d 1244, 1244 [1991]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Krupa v. Stanford
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
As a preliminary matter, we note that petitioner’s contention that the Board failed to consider his transition accountability plan was not raised in his administrative appeal or in the petition, and thus that contention is not properly before us (see Matter of Secore v Mantello, 176 AD2d 1244, 1244 [1991]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Matter of Thomas v. Stanford
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Petitioner never raised that contention on administrative appeal, and he therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to that contention ( see Matter of Espinal v Annucci , 173 AD3d 1850 , 1851 [4th Dept 2019]; see also Matter of Secore v Mantello , 176 AD2d 1244, 1244 [4th Dept 1991]; People ex rel.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Peter G. Secore
v.
Dominic J. Mantello, as Superintendent of Wende Correctional Facility
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 4, 1991.
176 A.D.2d 1244
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment denying his petition to annul a determination revoking parole and imposing a five-year hold period before he can be reconsidered for parole. We conclude that the petition was properly denied. Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on the issue of the excessiveness of the five-year hold period. Subsequent to commencement of this proceeding, the Appeals Unit determined that the recommended hold period exceeded two years and remitted the matter to the full Board of Parole for its determination. The record does not reveal whether the full Board has considered the issue or, if it did, the nature of its decision.

Petitioner failed to raise the remaining issues on his administrative appeal. Thus, those issues were not preserved for judicial review (see, Matter of Milburn v New York State Div. of Parole, 173 AD2d 1016). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fudeman, J. — Article 78.) Present —Callahan, A. P. J., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.