Collins v. Hammock
| Decision Date | 22 December 1980 |
| Citation | 417 N.E.2d 1245,436 N.Y.S.2d 704,52 N.Y.2d 798 |
| Parties | , 417 N.E.2d 1245 In the Matter of Clyde COLLINS, Jr., Appellant, v. Edward R. HAMMOCK, as Chairman of the New York State Board of Parole, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 76 A.D.2d 964, 429 N.Y.S.2d 391 should be modified as hereafter indicated and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner sought a new parole release hearing based upon a number of claimed errors in the procedure followed by the superintendent and the board. Special Term held that two of three disciplinary violations erroneously relied on in denying parole should be expunged from petitioner's record and that his criminal history score should have been computed at, and should be reduced to, eight rather than nine, but concluded that no error had been committed that warranted ordering a new parole hearing. The judgment entered simply dismissed the petition, however, and contained no direction for expunction or correction of the record.
On appeal to us petitioner argues for the first time that no verbatim record of the board proceedings was made as required by subdivision 6 of section 259-i of the Executive Law, that he was denied the opportunity to prepare for the hearing by seeking employment so that he could present a work plan, that the board improperly considered the third disciplinary violation, and that those errors required a new hearing.
The verbatim record point was not raised below and is not borne out by the record on this appeal, which shows that petitioner was offered but declined the opportunity to obtain the hearing record and thus establishes inferentially that such a record was made. The work plan argument, as the courts below have held, was not sustained factually. Nor was there error in not requiring a new hearing, for the board is directed by subdivision 2 of paragraph (c) of section 259-i to consider the inmate's institutional record and met its obligation under paragraph (a) of informing petitioner in writing of the reasons for denial of parole. Moreover, both reasons given ("Serious Disciplinary Record" and "unsatisfactory parole plan") find support in the record.
Special Term erred in two respects, however. First, it held that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. Goord, 05 Civ. 7484(JGK).
...138[5] irrespective of whether the plaintiff knew or should have known that the conduct was proscribed. Collins v. Hammock, 52 N.Y.2d 798, 436 N.Y.S.2d 704, 417 N.E.2d 1245, 1247 (1980); Barnes v. Smith, 115 A.D.2d 221, 496 N.Y.S.2d 124 The petition alleges that the disciplinary actions tak......
-
McDermott v. Coughlin
... ... Brown, 123 A.D.2d 473, 506 N.Y.S.2d 483; Matter of Collins" v. Hammock, 52 N.Y.2d 798, 436 N.Y.S.2d 704, 417 N.E.2d ... 1245), we are now inclined to render our decision herein without further delay ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Shakoor v. Coughlin
...knowledge of those institutional rules he is accused of violating (see, Correction Law § 138[5]; Matter of Collins v. Hammock, 52 N.Y.2d 798, 800, 436 N.Y.S.2d 704, 417 N.E.2d 1245; see also, Matter of Barnes v. Smith, 115 A.D.2d 221, 496 N.Y.S.2d 124), he waited until his administrative ap......
-
Watson v. Smith, 87 Civ. 5596 (LLS).
...v. Ward, 487 F.Supp. 917, 926 (S.D.N.Y.1980); Laaman v. Helgemoe, 437 F.Supp. 269, 322 (D.N.H.1977); Collins v. Hammock, 52 N.Y.2d 798, 436 N.Y.S.2d 704, 417 N.E.2d 1245 (Ct.App.1980). However, Watson points to no vagueness in the particular prison rules under which he was disciplined, and ......