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.
IN RE: Joseph ADAMS, Also Known as Evan Brown, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Keegan, J.), entered March 14, 2000 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent's motion to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
While on parole release, petitioner was arrested on September 22, 1997 and charged with burglary in the third degree, possession of burglary tools, petit larceny, resisting arrest and criminal mischief in the fourth degree. Following a final parole revocation hearing, petitioner was found to have violated the terms of his parole with respect to resisting arrest and his parole was revoked with the recommendation that he be held for the remainder of his sentence.
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the revocation of his parole, claiming that he was never given notice of the hearing and the final revocation hearing was untimely. Petitioner further contends that he was never notified of the final determination in order to perfect an appeal therefrom. Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground that claimant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. This appeal ensued.
Supreme Court's judgment should be affirmed, albeit on different grounds. Petitioner's conviction of the crime of burglary in the third degree and sentence of 2 to 4 years in prison on June 15, 1998, stemming from the September 22, 1997 arrest, resulted in an automatic revocation of petitioner's parole by operation of law (see, Executive Law § 259-i[3][d][iii]; see also, Matter of Bennett v. Kelly, 251 A.D.2d 776, 674 N.Y.S.2d 797, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 811, 680 N.Y.S.2d 457, 703 N.E.2d 269; Matter of Froats v. Rodriguez, 157 A.D.2d 981, 983, 550 N.Y.S.2d 465). Inasmuch as any determination of this proceeding by Supreme Court would not affect the rights and respective positions of the parties, the petition should have been dismissed as moot (see, Matter of Bennett v. Kelly, supra; Matter of Griffin v. Rodriguez, 187 A.D.2d 591, 590 N.Y.S.2d 215). Accordingly, we decline to address the merits of petitioner's appeal.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 14, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)