Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, ex rel. David CROSS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Byrne, J.), entered July 18, 1997, dismissing petitioner's writ of habeas corpus, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner has failed to establish that respondent did not exercise due diligence in executing the parole warrant against petitioner. Petitioner's arguments concerning the effect of respondent's Policy and Procedures Manual were rejected by this Court in People ex rel. Merritt v. New York State Div. of Parole, 257 A.D.2d 435, 682 N.Y.S.2d 579, and we see no reason to depart from that decision. Petitioner has not demonstrated that respondent manifested a gross disinterest in retaking him (see, People ex rel. Stracci v. Warden of the New York City House of Detention for Men, 72 A.D.2d 393, 424 N.Y.S.2d 704); nor has petitioner established that there was unwarranted delay on the part of respondent, particularly in light of the fact that petitioner relocated from his last approved residence without notifying respondent. Since respondent executed the warrant well before the expiration date of petitioner's underlying sentence, the execution was timely.
Respondent was not required to serve petitioner with a copy of the parole warrant. By serving petitioner with the Notice of Violation and Violation Release Report, respondent provided the notice required by Executive Law § 259-I(3)(c)(iii).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 04, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)