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: Armando GUZMAN, Appellant, v. CHAIRMAN, NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, et al., Respondents.
Appeals from two judgments of the Supreme Court (Hughes, J.), entered February 19, 1998 and February 26, 1998 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's applications, in two proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the State Board of Parole, inter alia, denying petitioner parole release.
Petitioner commenced two separate CPLR article 78 proceedings to challenge a November 4, 1996 determination denying him release on parole. Supreme Court dismissed both proceedings, petitioner appeals and we affirm. First, Supreme Court did not err in dismissing the second proceeding based upon the pendency of the first proceeding, which challenged the same administrative determination and raised the very same issues (see, CPLR 3211 [a][4]; Matter of Schaller v. Vacco, 241 A.D.2d 663, 659 N.Y.S.2d 587). Second, the challenges to the computation of petitioner's sentence were raised and rejected in a prior proceeding in Supreme Court, Bronx County, and were thus barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (see, Matter of Allen v. New York State Div. of Parole, 252 A.D.2d 691, 675 N.Y.S.2d 409). Third, the claim that the Parole Board improperly denied petitioner parole release was rendered moot by petitioner's subsequent appearance before the Parole Board in September 1998 (see, Matter of Almeyda v. New York State Div. of Parole, 251 A.D.2d 739, 672 N.Y.S.2d 274). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed, without costs.
MERCURE, J.
MIKOLL, J.P., CREW III, YESAWICH JR. and PETERS, 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: April 08, 1999
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)