Menechino v. Division of Parole, New York City
| Citation | 309 N.Y.S.2d 585,26 N.Y.2d 837 |
| Parties | , 258 N.E.2d 84 Application of Joseph MENECHINO, Appellant, v. DIVISION OF PAROLE NEW YORK CITY and New York State Board of Parole, Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 26 February 1970 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 32 A.D.2d 761, 301 N.Y.S.2d 350.
David Rosenberg, and Leonard B. Boudin, New York City, for appellant.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty.Gen. (Hillel Hoffman and Samuel A. Hirshowitz, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.
An application, designated as institution of a proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78, was brought to review and set aside determination of board of parole revoking parole of petitioner.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, Thomas C. Chimera, J., 57 Misc.2d 865, 293 N.Y.S.2d 741, entered a judgment for the petitioner and appeal was taken.
The Appellate Division reversed and vacated the judgment and held that the four months' statute of limitation period applicable to Article 78 proceeding barred petitioner from reviewing a determination rendered several years earlier by the board of parole. An appeal was taken.
Order affirmed, without costs, in the following memorandum:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs, on the sole ground that the proceeding brought, pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR, was barred by the four months period of limitation prescribed (CPLR 217). The court did not reach or consider the petitioner's argument that he had a constitutional right to be represented by counsel in a parole revocation proceeding. Our determination is, however, without prejudice to any other proceeding which the petitioner may be advised to institute.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Menechino v. Warden, Green Haven State Prison
...was dismissed on the ground that it had been commenced beyond the time permitted by statute. (See Matter of Menechino v. Division of Parole, 26 N.Y.2d 837, 309 N.Y.S.2d 585, 258 N.E.2d 84, affg. 32 A.D.2d 761, 301 N.Y.S.2d 350, revg. 57 Misc.2d 865, 293 N.Y.S.2d 741). 3 In reaching that con......
-
People ex rel. Henderson v. Casscles
...proceeding was alternative procedure and statute of limitations had run)). The result reached in Mtr. of Menechino v. Division of Parole, N.Y.C, 26 N.Y.2d 837, 309 N.Y.S.2d 585, 258 N.E.2d 84, is not to the contrary since what was involved there was a petition to review a Discretionary dete......
-
Hawkins v. Coughlin
...412 N.Y.S.2d 884, 385 N.E.2d 621; Matter of Menechino v. Division of Parole, 32 A.D.2d 761, 762, 301 N.Y.S.2d 350, affd. 26 N.Y.2d 837, 309 N.Y.S.2d 585, 258 N.E.2d 84; People v. Santos, 31 A.D.2d 508, 298 N.Y.S.2d 526, affd. 25 N.Y.2d 976; People ex rel. Natoli v. Lewis, 287 N.Y. 478, 41 N......
-
Soto v. New York State Bd. of Parole
...instant article 78 proceeding as time barred by the appropriate Statute of Limitations. In Matter of Menechino v. Division of Parole, N.Y. City, 26 N.Y.2d 837, 838, 309 N.Y.S.2d 585, 258 N.E.2d 84, the Court of Appeals held that an article 78 proceeding commenced in July, 1968 to review a r......