People v. New York State Div., Parole

12 Citing cases

  1. People ex rel. Allen v. Warden of George Motcham Det. Ctr.

    39 Misc. 3d 546 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)   Cited 3 times

    In Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484, the United States Supreme Court decided that the “minimum requirements of due process” due a parolee facing re-incarceration for a violation of parole, “include (a) written notice of the claimed violations of parole...” ( Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. at 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484). The purpose of this notice it to provide the parolee with sufficient time and information to investigate and prepare a defense before appearing for the preliminary hearing. However, the three-day limit under Executive Law § 259–i[3][c][iii] is not as strictly construed as the requirements of Executive Law § 259–i [3] [c][i], [iv] (see People ex rel. Washington v. NYS Div. of Parole, 279 A.D.2d 379, 720 N.Y.S.2d 22 [First Dept.2001] ). “[F]ailure to comply with the three-day limit for giving notice of parole violations does not affect the right to be restored to parole absent a showing of prejudice” ( People ex rel. Matos v. Warden, 58 A.D.3d 523, 523, 870 N.Y.S.2d 786 [First Dept.2009], lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 712, 882 N.Y.S.2d 398, 909 N.E.2d 1236 [2009]; see also People ex rel. Thompson v. Warden, 41 A.D.3d 292, 839 N.Y.S.2d 47 [First Dept.2007];People ex rel. Washington v. NYS Div. of Parole, 279 A.D.2d 379, 720 N.Y.S.2d 22 [First Dept.2001] ). In this matter, petitioner was served with his Notice of Violation on November 9, 2012, eleven days after execution of the warrant on October 29, 2012.

  2. People ex rel. Rushion v. Warden, Rikers Island Corr. Fac.

    36 Misc. 3d 1228 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

    It is well settled that failure to comply with the three day limit does not affect the right to be restored to parole absent a showing of prejudice. People ex rel. Thompson v. Warden Rikers Island Correctional Facility, 41A.D.3d 292, 41 A.D.3d 292, 839 N.Y.S.2d 47; citing People ex rel. Washington v. New York State Div. of Parole, 279 A.D.2d 379, 380, 720 N.Y.S.2d 22. The petitioner fails to allege or show any prejudice by the claimed two day delay in the notice. Id. at 48, 720 N.Y.S.2d 22. Therefore the contention that petitioner's right to timely notice of the preliminary parole revocation was violated is meritless.

  3. People v. Warden

    58 A.D.3d 523 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

    Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Acosta and Freedman, JJ. As this Court has repeatedly held, failure to comply with the three-day limit for giving notice of parole violations does not affect the right to be restored to parole absent a showing of prejudice ( People ex rel. Wise v New York State Div. of Parole, 50 AD3d 303; People ex rel. Thompson v Warden of Rikers Is. Correctional Facility, 41 AD3d 292; People ex rel. Washington v New York State Div. of Parole, 279 AD2d 379), which was not even claimed. In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to consider the other grounds urged for affirmance.

  4. People v. Rikers Island Warden

    41 A.D.3d 292 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)   Cited 1 times
    Speaking in terms of the hearing notice being “one day late” as opposed to several hours late

    An April 3 execution date would mean that the 15-day time limit for actually holding a preliminary parole revocation hearing (Executive Law § 259-i [c] [i]) was satisfied by the April 18 hearing, but that the three-day time limit for giving notice of that hearing (Executive Law § 259-i [c] [iii]) was one day late. However, unlike the 15-day time limit, a failure to comply with the three-day time limit does not affect the right to be restored to parole absent a showing of prejudice ( People ex rel. Washington v New York State Div. of Parole, 279 AD2d 379, 380). Petitioner does not allege or show any prejudice as a result of the claimed one-day delay. Petitioner's unpreserved claim that he did not receive notice that the hearing had been rescheduled from April 19 to April 18 is unavailing for similar reasons.

  5. Elmore v. O'Meara

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 30708 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)

    In any event, even if petitioner was correct in his assertion that he was not timely served in accordance with the three-day notice requirement set forth in Executive Law §259-i(3)(c)(iii), failure to comply with such requirement " . . . does not directly affect the right to be restored to parole, especially in the absence of a showing of prejudice." People ex rel Washington v.New York State Division of Parole, 279 AD2d 379, 380, citing People ex rel Williams v. Walsh, 241 AD2d 979, lv denied 90 NY2d 809. See People ex rel Matos v. Warden, Rikers Island Correctional Facility, 58 AD3d 523, lv den 12 NY3d 712 and People ex rel Thompson v. Warden of Rikers Island Correctional Facility, 41 AD3d 292.

  6. People ex rel. Patterson v. Warden, Rikers Island Corr. Fac.

    36 Misc. 3d 1235 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

    The Court notes that failure to strictly adhere to the three day notice period may not be fatal to parole violation proceedings under some circumstances (unlike strict adherence to the 15 day period in which a preliminary hearing must be held). It is axiomatic that an alleged parole violator must receive notice of the allegations before the preliminary hearing (see generally, People ex rel. Washington v. New York State Division of Parole, 279 A.D.2d 379 [2nd Dept.2001]; People ex rel. Davis v. Warden, Anna M. Kross Center N.Y. State Div. of Parole, supra.), but the instant situation is complicated by the fact that Petitioner did not appear at the preliminary hearing when the administrative law judge found probable cause(see generally, People ex rel. Williams v. Walsh, 241 A.D.2d 979 [4th Dept.1997] ).

  7. People ex rel. Manning v. Warden

    35 Misc. 3d 1238 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

    No argument exists that Petitioner was properly served with the notice of preliminary hearing. Not only was any delay the result of Petitioner refusing service, no prejudice exists with respect to the delay ( see generally, People ex rel. Washington v. New York State Div. of Parole, 279 A.D.2d 379 [1st Dept.2001].While Petitioner apparently argued at the preliminary hearing that the Court must review the hearing officer's reasons for continuing the case, no such requirement is apparent in the statutory language.

  8. Gilbert v. Taylor

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 31089 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)

    People ex rel Williams v. Walsh, 241 AD2d 979, lv den 90 NY2d 809. People ex rel Washington v. New York State Division of Parole, 279 AD2d 379, 380. See People ex rel Matos v. Warden, Rikers Island Correctional Facility, 58 AD3d 523, lv den 12 NY3d 712 and People ex rel Thompson v. Warden of Rikers Island Correctional Facility, 41 AD3d 292. This Court perceives no basis for any allegation of prejudice where, as here, petitioner appeared and participated in a contested preliminary parole revocation hearing without interposing any objection as to the timeliness of notice.

  9. People ex rel. Barber v. Warden

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 51746 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)

    DOCCS suggests that Petitioner waived objection to timely service by refusing service when his parole officer attempted to serve the notice at Rikers on Sunday, May 1, 2011. Because Petitioner avoided service (see, Exhibit D, p. 5), the parole officer says he mailed the notice on the next day (Monday) in response and received proof of postal service which he brought to the preliminary hearing (see, Exhibit D, pp. 6 and 7). In this regard, DOCCS argues not only was the delay caused by Petitioner's refusal to accept service, but Petitioner specified no particular prejudice at the hearing or in his pleadings concerning the delay (see generally, People ex rel. Washington v. NYS Div. of Parole, 279 AD2d 379 [1st Dept. 2001]). The Court agrees with Respondents that Petitioner's argument concerning untimely service is unfounded. Failure to comply with the three day rule does not generally affect a petitioner's right to parole restoration (see generally, People ex rel. Williams v. Walsh, 241 AD2d 979 [4th Dept. 1997]).

  10. People ex Rel. Barber v. Warden

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 51746 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2011)

    Because Petitioner avoided service (see, Exhibit D, p. 5), the parole officer says he mailed the notice on the next day (Monday) in response and received proof of postal service which he brought to the preliminary hearing (see, Exhibit D, pp. 6 and 7). In this regard, DOCCS argues not only was the delay caused by Petitioner's refusal to accept service, but Petitioner specified no particular prejudice at the hearing or in his pleadings concerning the delay (see generally, People ex rel. Washington v. NYS Div. of Parole, 279 AD2d 379 [1st Dept. 2001]). The Court agrees with Respondents that Petitioner's argument concerning untimely service is unfounded.