N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Executive / ARTICLE State Board of Parole

N.Y. Executive Law § 259

Definitions

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 259. Definitions. When used in this article, the following terms
shall have the following meanings:
  1. "Board" means the state board of parole.
  2. "Commissioner" means the commissioner of the department of
corrections and community supervision.
  3. "Community supervision" means the supervision of individuals
released into the community on temporary release, presumptive release,
parole, conditional release, post release supervision or medical parole.
  4. "Department" means the department of corrections and community
supervision.
  5. "Releasee" means an individual released from an institution under
the jurisdiction of the department into the community on temporary
release, presumptive release, parole, conditional release, post-release
supervision or medical parole.
  6. "Technical violation" means any conduct that violates a condition
of community supervision in an important respect, other than the
commission of a new felony or misdemeanor offense under the penal law.
  7. "Non-technical violation" means: (a) the commission of a new felony
or misdemeanor offense; or (b) conduct by a releasee who is serving a
sentence for an offense defined in article 130 of the penal law or
section 255.26 or 255.27 of such law, and such conduct violated a
specific condition reasonably related to such offense and efforts to
protect the public from the commission of a repeat of such offense.
  8. "Absconding" means intentionally avoiding supervision by failing to
maintain contact or communication with the releasee's assigned community
supervision officer or area bureau office and to notify his or her
assigned community supervision officer or area bureau office of a change
in residence, and reasonable efforts by the assigned community
supervision officer to re-engage the releasee have been unsuccessful.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 161 cases (50 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Robles v. Dennison
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Robles v. Dennison (2010) nywd · cites it 33× “July 17, 2006) (citing N.Y. Exec. Law § 259 (1) (“There shall be in the executive department of state government a state division of parole.”
Farid v. Bouey (2008) nynd · cites it 4× “On April 7, 2005 that denial of plaintiffs Article 78 petition was upheld on appeal to the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division, Third Department, which similarly concluded that the parole board had “considered the appropriate factors”, and that the parole rejection…”
Boddie v. New York State Division of Parole (2003) nysd · cites it 3× “Because of the amount of time the Parole Board is given to respond to administrative appeals, and the further time to file an Article 78 petition and appeal any adverse ruling, Boddie argues that by the time any challenge to a parole board hearing would make its way up to…”
Scott v. Dennison (2010) nywd · cites it 9× “*352 The Second Circuit has determined that New York’s parole scheme (NY. Exec. Law § 259—i and N.Y. Comp.Code R.”
Siao-Pao v. Connolly (2008) nysd · cites it 4× “June 26, 2003) 0quoting N.Y. Exec. L. § 259 -i(2)(c) (A)). Courts in this District have rejected similar political pressure arguments in other cases.”
Matter of Williams v. Department of Corr. & Community Supervision (2016) nyappdiv · cites it 2× “” These affirmative restraints are “not [merely] residency restriction [s], but [constitute] a comprehensive movement restriction” (Devine v Annucci, 45 Misc 3d 1001, 1007 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2014] [analyzing the punitive effect of Executive Law § 259 (c) (14)]).”
People ex rel. Marrero v. Stanford (2023) nyappdiv · cites it 9× “Supreme Court concluded that petitioner's violation constituted a technical violation under the Less is More Act ( see Executive Law §§ 259 [6], [7] [a]; 259-i [3] [f] [xi], [xii]) and ordered that DOCCS recalculate the time assessment from 30 months to 15 days and to release…”
Duaut A. Duamutef v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2004) ca2 · cites it 2× “” N.Y. EXEC. LAW § 259 -i(2)(d)(i) (McKinney 2004).”
Hurd v. Fredenburgh (2021) ca2 “40 (1)(b); see also N.Y. Exec. Law § 259 -c(2) (granting the state board of parole authority of “determining the conditions of release of the person who may be .”
Peoples v. Leon (2023) ca2 · cites it 2× “” N.Y. EXEC. LAW § 259 -c(2) (McKinney 2022).”
United States v. Edward Cardona (1990) ca1 · cites it 2× “N.Y.Exec.Law § 259 — i(3)(a)(iii) (1982).”
Wallace v. State (2014) nyed · cites it 4× “State The State’s Sexual Assault Reform Act, which went into effect off February 1, 2001, enacted new provisions, codified as N.Y. Exec. Law § 259—c(14) and N.Y. Penal Law § 65.”
Show all 161 citing cases →
— N.Y. Executive Law § 259(7) — 1 case
People ex rel. Bradley v. Martuscello (2025) nysupctwyom
— N.Y. Executive Law § 259(c)(14) — 1 case
Matter of Williams v. Department of Corr. & Community Supervision (2016) nyappdiv “” These affirmative restraints are “not [merely] residency restriction [s], but [constitute] a comprehensive movement restriction” (Devine v Annucci, 45 Misc 3d 1001, 1007 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2014] [analyzing the punitive effect of Executive Law § 259 (c) (14)]).”
— N.Y. Executive Law § 259(i) — 1 case
Rullo v. Rodriguez (1985) nysd
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.