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: Raymond CODY, Respondent, v. Brion D. TRAVIS, as Chairman of the Division of Parole, Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Berke, J.), entered July 3, 1996 in Washington County, which granted petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to annul the State Board of Parole's determination denying petitioner parole, and ordered a new parole hearing.
In 1985, petitioner was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and sentenced to a prison term of 8 1/3 to 25 years. Thereafter, on February 22, 1995, petitioner appeared before the State Board of Parole seeking release. In denying petitioner's application in this regard, the Board cited the “heinous and brutal nature” of the underlying offense, wherein petitioner “caused the death of the 16 year old female victim by striking her in the head with a blunt instrument and then [burying] her body under some window frames” where she was not discovered until approximately four months later. As a result, the Board placed a 24-month hold on petitioner and scheduled his next parole hearing for February 1997.
Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul respondent's determination. Supreme Court granted petitioner's application and remanded the matter for a new hearing, finding that the Board, in reaching its determination, assumed a fact not in evidence-namely, that petitioner struck the victim in the head with a blunt instrument. This appeal by respondent followed.
Inasmuch as the 24-month period set forth in the Board's determination has expired, respondent's appeal is moot (see, People ex rel. Vines v. Executive Dept. of State of N.Y., 237 A.D.2d 778, 655 N.Y.S.2d 456; Matter of Alexander v. Rodriguez, 182 A.D.2d 958, 582 N.Y.S.2d 538). As we are unable to discern any exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714-715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876), the appeal must be dismissed.
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
CREW, Justice Presiding.
WHITE, PETERS, SPAIN and CARPINELLO, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: October 16, 1997
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)