Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1974–1987 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People ex rel. Gonzales v. Dalsheimgreen2 sentences1983Gonzales v Dalsheim, 52 NY2d 9; People ex rel. 1983In Gonzales (supra), the court reasoned: “In view of the relative ease of interstate communication and transportation and the vitality of legal and practical interstate co-operation today we perceive no sufficient justification for laying down a per se rule that imprisonment in a sister State means necessarily and always that the imprisoned parolee is not subject to the convenience and control of New York State parole authorities. | 1 | 3 |
Beattie v. New York State Boardgreen2 sentences1982Continuing in the chronological order of events, Matter of Beattie v New York State Bd. of Parole (supra) was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on April 27, 1976 in 39 NY2d 445 , where the court, in dealing with the question concerning a situation where the petitioner, a local prisoner, was temporarily lodged in a State prison facility, held, inter alia, as follows (p 447): “Of course, the parolee, in order to receive a hearing, must be in the custody of a correction facility as an inmate in connection with which the Parole Board has parole jurisdiction (cf. People ex rel. 1976On facts essentially the same as those in the instant case, this court has held that "nothing in the applicable statutes or the decision of the Supreme Court in Morrissey v. Brewer [supra] would mandate a prompt revocation hearing when a parolee is already serving a sentence of imprisonment following conviction for a new offense” (Matter of Mullins v State Bd. of Parole, 43 AD2d 382, 383 , app dsmd as moot 35 NY2d 992 ; see Matter of Beattie v New York State Bd. of Parole, 39 NY2d 445 ; People ex rel. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
2 sentences1982It has been aptly noted that the right to a prompt revocation hearing is analogous to the right to a speedy trial and that regardless of other pending criminal charges, due process mandates that the alleged parole violator be accorded the right to a hearing within a reasonably prompt period of time (Morrissey v Brewer, 408 US 471, 478-479 ; Matter of Wright v Regan, 46 AD2d 163 ; Matter of McLucas v Oswald, 40 AD2d 311 ; People ex rel. 1982Although due process ordinarily requires that a parolee, charged with violating the conditions of his parole, receive a prompt revocation hearing (Morrissey v Brewer, 408 US 471 ), it has also been held that the Constitution imposes no obligation upon a parole authority to execute a parole warrant prior to the parolee’s release from an intervening incarceration. | 9 | 1974–1982 |
Moody v. Daggett
green
2 sentences1977Under these circumstances, a prompt revocation hearing is not mandated (see Moody v Daggett, supra; People ex rel. 1976In an identical case, Matter of Mullins v State Bd. of Parole ( 43 AD2d 382 , app dsmd as moot 35 NY2d 992 ), we have held that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Morrissey v Brewer ( 408 US 471 ) does not require a prompt revocation hearing where a parolee is serving a sentence for conviction of a crime while on parole (Moody v Daggett, 429 US 78 ). | 3 | 1976–1982 |
Claim of Mullins v. State Board of Parole
green
2 sentences1976In an identical case, Matter of Mullins v State Bd. of Parole ( 43 AD2d 382 , app dsmd as moot 35 NY2d 992 ), we have held that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Morrissey v Brewer ( 408 US 471 ) does not require a prompt revocation hearing where a parolee is serving a sentence for conviction of a crime while on parole (Moody v Daggett, 429 US 78 ). 1976On facts essentially the same as those in the instant case, this court has held that "nothing in the applicable statutes or the decision of the Supreme Court in Morrissey v. Brewer [supra] would mandate a prompt revocation hearing when a parolee is already serving a sentence of imprisonment following conviction for a new offense” (Matter of Mullins v State Bd. of Parole, 43 AD2d 382, 383 , app dsmd as moot 35 NY2d 992 ; see Matter of Beattie v New York State Bd. of Parole, 39 NY2d 445 ; People ex rel. | 3 | 1976–1976 |
McLucas v. Oswald
green
2 sentences1982It has been aptly noted that the right to a prompt revocation hearing is analogous to the right to a speedy trial and that regardless of other pending criminal charges, due process mandates that the alleged parole violator be accorded the right to a hearing within a reasonably prompt period of time (Morrissey v Brewer, 408 US 471, 478-479 ; Matter of Wright v Regan, 46 AD2d 163 ; Matter of McLucas v Oswald, 40 AD2d 311 ; People ex rel. 1975It has been aptly noted that the right to a prompt revocation hearing is analogous to the right to a speedy trial and that regardless of other pending criminal charges, due process mandates that the alleged parole violator be accorded the right to a hearing within a reasonably prompt period of time (Morrissey v Brewer, 408 US 471, 478-479 ; Matter of Wright v Regan, 46 AD2d 163 ; Matter of McLucas v Oswald, 40 AD2d 311 ; People ex rel. | 2 | 1975–1982 |
Wright v. Regan
green
2 sentences1982It has been aptly noted that the right to a prompt revocation hearing is analogous to the right to a speedy trial and that regardless of other pending criminal charges, due process mandates that the alleged parole violator be accorded the right to a hearing within a reasonably prompt period of time (Morrissey v Brewer, 408 US 471, 478-479 ; Matter of Wright v Regan, 46 AD2d 163 ; Matter of McLucas v Oswald, 40 AD2d 311 ; People ex rel. 1975It has been aptly noted that the right to a prompt revocation hearing is analogous to the right to a speedy trial and that regardless of other pending criminal charges, due process mandates that the alleged parole violator be accorded the right to a hearing within a reasonably prompt period of time (Morrissey v Brewer, 408 US 471, 478-479 ; Matter of Wright v Regan, 46 AD2d 163 ; Matter of McLucas v Oswald, 40 AD2d 311 ; People ex rel. | 2 | 1975–1982 |
People ex rel. Allah v. Warden, Bronx House of Detention
neutral
2 sentences1982Allah v Warden, Bronx House of Detention ( 47 AD2d 485, 487 , app dsmd 38 NY2d 823 ), the First Department, in reversing the dismissal of a writ and vacating the detainer warrant where the defendant, a State prisoner, was denied a prompt revocation hearing because his detention in a city jail “terminated, in a sense, the constructive custody of the State Parole Board”, held, inter alia, as follows (pp 487-488): “This argument may not serve as justification for the failure to hold a final parole revocation hearing. 1982Allah v Warden, Bronx House of Detention ( 47 AD2d 485, 487 , app dsmd 38 NY2d 823 ), the First Department, in reversing the dismissal of a writ and vacating the detainer warrant where the defendant, a State prisoner, was denied a prompt revocation hearing because his detention in a city jail “terminated, in a sense, the constructive custody of the State Parole Board”, held, inter alia, as follows (pp 487-488): “This argument may not serve as justification for the failure to hold a final parole revocation hearing. | 2 | 1976–1982 |
In re the City of New York
neutral
2 sentences1982At the outset, it may be noted that in February of 1975 this court, in Matter of Beattie v New York State Bd. of Parole ( 47 AD2d 656 ), which involved a local prisoner denied a prompt revocation hearing because he was temporarily housed in a State penal institution, held, in directing an “immediate hearing”, “the parole board should be aware of the fact that continued indifference to the rights of defendants to obtain prompt revocation hearings may, in the future, result in the vacatur, with prejudice, of warrants in all such cases.” In People ex rel. 1976The effect of denying such a timely hearing to an alleged parole violator can result in his release (Matter of Beattie v New York State Bd. of Parole, 47 AD2d 656 ). | 2 | 1976–1982 |
People ex rel. McNair v. West
neutral
2 sentences1982McNair v West, 77 Misc 2d 150 , affd 46 AD2d 741 ). 1975McNair v West, 77 Misc 2d 150 , affd 46 AD2d 741 ). | 2 | 1975–1982 |
Claim of Mullins v. State Board of Parole
neutral
2 sentences1976In an identical case, Matter of Mullins v State Bd. of Parole ( 43 AD2d 382 , app dsmd as moot 35 NY2d 992 ), we have held that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Morrissey v Brewer ( 408 US 471 ) does not require a prompt revocation hearing where a parolee is serving a sentence for conviction of a crime while on parole (Moody v Daggett, 429 US 78 ). 1976On facts essentially the same as those in the instant case, this court has held that "nothing in the applicable statutes or the decision of the Supreme Court in Morrissey v. Brewer [supra] would mandate a prompt revocation hearing when a parolee is already serving a sentence of imprisonment following conviction for a new offense” (Matter of Mullins v State Bd. of Parole, 43 AD2d 382, 383 , app dsmd as moot 35 NY2d 992 ; see Matter of Beattie v New York State Bd. of Parole, 39 NY2d 445 ; People ex rel. | 2 | 1976–1976 |
People ex rel. Robertson v. New York State Division
green
1 sentence1987Robertson v New York State Div. of Parole, 67 NY2d 197 ). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
People ex rel. Walsh v. Vincent
neutral
1 sentence1982Walsh v Vincent ( 50 AD2d 914 ), in reversing a judgment dismissing a petition, granting the same, and restoring the petitioner to parole in a case where petitioner, as a local prisoner, was denied a prompt revocation hearing while lodged in a local facility, again concluded with the same admonition it made in the Beattie case. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Higgins v. New York State Division of Parole
green
1 sentence1982Gonzales v Dalsheim, supra, p 14; Matter of Higgins v New York State Div. of Parole, supra). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People ex rel. Serrano v. Warden
neutral
2 sentences1982Allah v Warden, Bronx House of Detention ( 47 AD2d 485, 487 , app dsmd 38 NY2d 823 ), the First Department, in reversing the dismissal of a writ and vacating the detainer warrant where the defendant, a State prisoner, was denied a prompt revocation hearing because his detention in a city jail “terminated, in a sense, the constructive custody of the State Parole Board”, held, inter alia, as follows (pp 487-488): “This argument may not serve as justification for the failure to hold a final parole revocation hearing. 1982Allah v Warden, Bronx House of Detention ( 47 AD2d 485, 487 , app dsmd 38 NY2d 823 ), the First Department, in reversing the dismissal of a writ and vacating the detainer warrant where the defendant, a State prisoner, was denied a prompt revocation hearing because his detention in a city jail “terminated, in a sense, the constructive custody of the State Parole Board”, held, inter alia, as follows (pp 487-488): “This argument may not serve as justification for the failure to hold a final parole revocation hearing. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People ex rel. Walsh v. Vincent
green
1 sentence1982Walsh v Vincent, 40 NY2d 1049, 1050 .) And, if he is not afforded a prompt hearing, it falls upon the State to carry “the modest burden” of demonstrating that, by reason of his incarceration, the parolee was not subject to the board’s convenience and control. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
People ex rel. Graves v. Chairman of the New York State Board of Parole
neutral
1 sentence1977Harrison v Smith, 55 AD2d 1013 ; People ex rel. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Sims v. Preiser
green
1 sentence1976Nance v Board of Parole, 53 AD2d 739 ; Sims v Preiser, 50 AD2d 983 , mot for lv to app den 39 NY2d 707 ; People ex rel. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People ex rel. Nance v. New York State Board of Parole
neutral
1 sentence1976Nance v Board of Parole, 53 AD2d 739 ; Sims v Preiser, 50 AD2d 983 , mot for lv to app den 39 NY2d 707 ; People ex rel. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.