Opinion
March 7, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Albany County (Cheeseman, J.).
Upon petitioner's conviction for a subsequent crime, his parole was revoked by operation of law (see, Executive Law § 259-i [d] [iii]; Matter of Froats v Rodriguez, 157 A.D.2d 981, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 710). He now claims that the revocation was improper because he was not "notified in writing that his release [was] revoked", as required by Executive Law § 259-i (3) (d) (iii). However, the record shows that petitioner did in fact receive sufficient written notice of the revocation and any lack of "official" notification in no way prejudiced him (see, People ex rel. Knowles v Smith, 54 N.Y.2d 259, 265; Matter of Cotto v LeFevre, 149 A.D.2d 838). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.
Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.