People ex rel. Suce v. Taylor, 37 A.D.3d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
Search
People ex rel. Suce v. Taylor, 37 A.D.3d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Matter of Acevedo v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (nyappdiv, 2015-08-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Acevedo v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Finally, the prohibition contained in the Ex Post Facto Clause of the US Constitution applies only to penal statutes and not to regulations such as those at issue here (see Kellogg v Travis, 100 NY2d 407, 410 [2003]; Matter of Santiago v Roy, 117 AD3d 1352, 1353 [2014]; Matter of Suce v Taylor, 37 AD3d 886, 887 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 803 [2007]; Matter of Robinson v Bennett, 300 AD2d 715, 716 [2002]; but see Matter of McKevitt v Fiala, 129 AD3d 730, 731 [2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Allen v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2014 · confidence medium
In addition, it has been held that the ex post facto doctrine does not apply to administrative regulations (see Matter of Robinson v Bennett, 300 AD2d 715, 716 [3d Dept 2002]; Matter of Suce v Taylor, 37 AD3d 886, 887 [3d Dept 2007]).
discussed Cited "see" Boddie v. Alexander
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
Nor do we find that petitioner was excused from doing so based upon his “mere assertion that a constitutional right is involved” (Matter of Valvano v Jones, 122 AD2d 336, 336 [1986], quoting Matter of Pfaff v Columbia-Greene Community Coll., 99 AD2d 887, 888 [1984]; see Matter of Roberts v Coughlin, 165 AD2d 964, 966 [1990]) inasmuch as his substantive claim—that the application of the 1997 amendments to 9 NYCRR 8005.20 (c) and (d) violated the ex post facto doctrine because he was sentenced prior to the promulgation of the amendments—has been previously rejected by this Court (see Mat…
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Luciano Suce
v.
Justin A. Taylor, as Superintendent of Gouverneur Correctional Facility
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 1, 2007.
37 A.D.3d 886
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered April 3, 2006 in St. Lawrence County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

In 1987, petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 8 to 16 years upon his conviction of the crime of kidnapping in the second degree. He was released to parole supervision in 2000. In August 2004, he was charged with parole violations. After a hearing, his parole was revoked and he was directed held until the maximum expiration of his sentence. Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeMng a writ of habeas corpus after an unsuccessful administrative appeal. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. The parole violation charge that petitioner used opiates without medical authorization was supported by credible evidence at his parole revocation hearing, including a toxicology report (see People ex rel. Brazeau v McLaughlin, 233[*887] AD2d 724, 725 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 810 [1997]). Notably, petitioner did not deny the charges of curfew violation, refusal to submit to a drug test and leaving the parole office without completing his report, all of which were supported by testimonial evidence.

Petitioner’s refusal to appear at the last session of his parole revocation hearing constituted a waiver of his right to be present. His challenge to the time assessment guidelines of the Board of Parole is also without merit as the ex post facto doctrine does not apply to regulations (see 9 NYCRR 8005.20 [c]; Matter of Robinson v Bennett, 300 AD2d 715, 716 [2002]). To the extent that petitioner’s additional claims are preserved, we have reviewed them and conclude that they are without merit.

Cardona, EJ., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.