From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People ex rel. Fahim v. Lacy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 4, 1999
266 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Decided November 4, 1999

Abdullah Fahim, Malone, appellant in person.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Patrick Barnett-Mulligan of counsel), Albany, for respondent.

Before: CARDONA, P.J., MIKOLL, CREW III, YESAWICH JR. and MUGGLIN, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lahtinen, J.), entered January 4, 1999 in Franklin County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Following a final parole revocation hearing at which petitioner was found guilty of violating a condition of his parole by engaging in unlawful activity, petitioner's parole was revoked and a hold period of 24 months was imposed. Petitioner thereafter commenced this proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus primarily contending that the determination to revoke his parole was not supported by substantial evidence. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal by petitioner.

In our view, substantial evidence supports the determination revoking petitioner's parole based upon his violation of the parole condition (see, Matter of Hicks v. New York State Div. of Parole, 255 A.D.2d 842, appeal dismissed, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 846;People ex rel. Brazeau v. McLaughlin, 233 A.D.2d 724, lvs denied 89 N.Y.2d 810). According to two police reports and the testimony of the detective who prepared them, the victim appeared at the police station with facial injuries and reported that petitioner struck her repeatedly during a domestic dispute. Following his arrest on assault charges, petitioner admitted to his parole officer that he struck the victim during an altercation. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the admission was properly received into evidence at the revocation hearing (see, People ex rel. Maiello v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 65 N.Y.2d 145) and the victim's testimony recanting her prior accusation merely created a credibility issue for the Administrative Law Judge to resolve (see, Matter of Alexander v. New York State Div. of Parole, 236 A.D.2d 761).

Petitioner's remaining contentions, including his claim of prejudice resulting from the Administrative Law Judge's decision to permit respondent to reopen and proceed on a previously withdrawn charge, have been reviewed and rejected as lacking in merit.

CARDONA, P.J., CREW III, YESAWICH JR. and MUGGLIN, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

People ex rel. Fahim v. Lacy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 4, 1999
266 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People ex rel. Fahim v. Lacy

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. ABDULLAH FAHIM, Appellant, v…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 4, 1999

Citations

266 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
697 N.Y.S.2d 737

Citing Cases

People ex Rel. Gonzalez v. Laclair

Accordingly, the statements were not hearsay and their admission did not violate petitioner's right to…

Matter of Cole v. Travis

Initially, we reject petitioner's contention that the evidence presented at the parole revocation hearing was…