Abrams v. Stanford
| Decision Date | 10 May 2017 |
| Citation | 150 A.D.3d 846,56 N.Y.S.3d 114 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Samuel ABRAMS, appellant, v. Tina M. STANFORD, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
150 A.D.3d 846
56 N.Y.S.3d 114
In the Matter of Samuel ABRAMS, appellant,
v.
Tina M. STANFORD, respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 10, 2017.
Orlee Goldfeld, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and David Lawrence III of counsel), for respondent.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SHERI S. ROMAN, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, in effect, to review a determination of the New York State Board of Parole dated March 10, 2014, which, in effect, rescinded the petitioner's conditional parole for deportation only, which had been granted in its determination dated February 18, 2014, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated April 6, 2015,
which, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is granted, the determination dated March 10, 2014, is annulled, and the petitioner's grant of conditional parole for deportation only is reinstated.
After serving 20 years of an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 20 years to life, the petitioner was denied parole in January 2012. He secured a rehearing by order of the Supreme Court, Albany County.
At the rehearing on February 18, 2014, more than two years after the original hearing, the petitioner was granted conditional parole for deportation only by a divided two-to-one vote of the New York State Board of Parole (hereinafter the Parole Board). As he had been issued a final removal order in 2002, it appeared that the petitioner would be deported to Guyana. In a determination dated February 24, 2014, the Parole Board granted conditional parole for deportation only "effective today 2/18/14," which was the date of the rehearing. However, in a determination dated March 10, 2014, the Parole Board, in effect, rescinded the grant of conditional parole for deportation only by making the grant "effective 1/24/12," the date of the original parole hearing, to expire "not later than 01/2014," even before the February 24, 2014, determination had been rendered.
The petitioner commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to challenge the determination dated March 10, 2014. The Supreme Court, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
On appeal, the petitioner seeks to restore his grant of conditional parole for deportation only, or, in the alternative, a de novo hearing.
The Parole Board contends that the instant appeal has been rendered academic because, subsequent to the determination under review, the petitioner was afforded another de novo parole hearing and denied parole. Contrary to this contention, while a subsequent denial of parole release renders an appeal from a previous denial of parole academic (see Matter of Moissett v. Travis, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Johnson v. Superintendent, Adirondack Corr Facility
...U.S. 471, 482, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 [1972] ; Victory v. Pataki, 814 F.3d 47, 60 [2d Cir.2016] ; Matter of Abrams v. Stanford , 150 A.D.3d 846, 848, 56 N.Y.S.3d 114 [2017] ). Parole release nevertheless remains a statutory grant of "a restricted form of liberty" prior to the expirat......
-
People ex rel. Neurohr v. Superintendent, Clinton Corr. Facility
...1, 12 (1979); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972); Victory v. Pataki, 814 F.3d 47, 60 (2d Cir. 2016); Matter of Abrams v. Stanford, 150 A.D.3d 846, 848 (2d Dept. 2017). Parole release nevertheless remains a statutory grant of "a restricted form of liberty" prior to the expiration ......
-
People v. Superintendent, Clinton Corr. Facility
...12 (1979); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482 (1972); Victory v. Pataki, 814 F.3d 47, 60 (2d Cir. 2016); Matter of Abrams v. Stanford, 150 A.D.3d 846, 848 (2d Dept. 2017). Parole release nevertheless remains a statutory grant of "a restricted form of liberty" prior to the expiration of ......
-
Wells Fargo Bank N.A. v. Area Plumbing Supply, Inc.
...evidence evincing the conduct between the parties to establish representative capacity is inapplicable here, as the plaintiff is an 56 N.Y.S.3d 114assignee and not the "immediate part[y]" to the mortgage required by the statute (U.C.C. 3–403 [2 ] [b]; see Bankers Trust v. Javeri, 105 A.D.2d......