Lindsay v. New York State Bd. of Parole
| Decision Date | 11 December 1979 |
| Citation | 424 N.Y.S.2d 883,48 N.Y.2d 883 |
| Parties | , 400 N.E.2d 1335 Richard LINDSAY, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF PAROLE et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the petition granted, and the parole violation charges dismissed.
Petitioner commenced this article 78 proceeding to vacate parole violation charges lodged against him. Although the alleged violations occurred in 1973, no final revocation hearing had been held at the time this proceeding was instituted in 1977. However, a parole eligibility hearing on a new conviction was conducted earlier in 1977, more than four years after the alleged parole violations. The question is whether the eligibility hearing renders academic the failure to hold a final revocation hearing.
Preliminarily, the appeal is not moot, contrary to respondent's contention. The impact of the parole violation charges does not end with petitioner's release from prison, but may continue to affect matters such as the maximum parole expiration date. Thus, the relief sought in this article 78 proceeding might well lead to an earlier termination of parole supervision.
On the merits, we agree that the failure to hold a timely revocation hearing requires dismissal of the parole violation charges (Matter of Piersma v. Henderson, 44 N.Y.2d 982, 408 N.Y.S.2d 332, 380 N.E.2d 164; People ex rel. Walsh v. Vincent, 40 N.Y.2d 1049, 392 N.Y.S.2d 240, 360 N.E.2d 919). That a parole eligibility hearing was eventually conducted is irrelevant. Due to its different nature and scope, the eligibility hearing could not serve as a substitute for the final revocation hearing. To the extent that the memorandum in People ex rel. Schmidt v. La Vallee, 39 N.Y.2d 886, 386 N.Y.S.2d 392, 352 N.E.2d 579, may be interpreted as holding otherwise, it is disapproved.
Order reversed, etc.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodwin v. Hammock, 80 Civ. 2270.
...Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275, 92 S.Ct. 509, 512, 30 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971). 6 See, e. g., Lindsay v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 49 N.Y.2d 883, 424 N.Y.S.2d 883, 400 N.E.2d 1335 (1979); Higgins v. New York State Div. of Parole, 72 A.D.2d 583, 420 N.Y.S.2d 932 (2d Dep't 1979); Piersma v......
-
Soto v. New York State Bd. of Parole
...in Matter of Kenny v. Loos, 286 App.Div. 97, 140 N.Y.S.2d 817, and that of the Court of Appeals in Lindsay v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 48 N.Y.2d 883, 424 N.Y.S.2d 883, 400 N.E.2d 1335, cited by the dissent, do not involve article 78 proceedings to review determinations revoking parole,......
-
People ex rel. Gonzales v. Dalsheim
...operates upon a parolee's incarceration for the commission of an unrelated crime in New York. (Lindsay v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 48 N.Y.2d 883, 424 N.Y.S.2d 883, 400 N.E.2d 1335; Matter of Piersma v. Henderson, 44 N.Y.2d 982, 408 N.Y.S.2d 332, 380 N.E.2d 164, cert. den. 439 U.S. 1088......
-
Abrams v. Stanford
...400 ), here, the issue on appeal is not rendered academic by the subsequent proceedings (see Lindsay v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 48 N.Y.2d 883, 424 N.Y.S.2d 883, 400 N.E.2d 1335 ; Matter of McAllister v. New York State Div. of Parole, 78 A.D.3d 1413, 910 N.Y.S.2d 600 ). The petitioner ......