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. Anthony KING, Appellant, v. Peter J. LACY, as Superintendent of Barehill Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Demarest, J.), entered November 12, 1997 in Franklin County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, was released on parole. He was subsequently charged with violations of the conditions of his parole, including the use of cocaine, failing to make an office report and failing to attend a specified drug treatment program. A parole revocation hearing was conducted and after reserving decision, the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) recommended that petitioner's parole be revoked. Respondent State Board of Parole accepted the ALJ's determination but reduced the recommended parole hold to 18 months. Petitioner served a notice of his intention to take an administrative appeal and, alleging certain defects in the hearing, commenced this habeas corpus proceeding.
We affirm. Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition because petitioner commenced this proceeding prior to exhausting all administrative remedies (see, People ex rel. Scott v. Babbie, 248 A.D.2d 909, 670 N.Y.S.2d 617; People ex rel. Vazquez v. Travis, 236 A.D.2d 745, 653 N.Y.S.2d 737,appeal dismissed 91 N.Y.2d 847, 667 N.Y.S.2d 680, 690 N.E.2d 489). In our view, petitioner's excuse for not pursuing his administrative appeal is without merit. Even if petitioner had not been promptly provided a copy of the ALJ's written findings and decision, petitioner could have requested an extension of his time to perfect rather than abandon his administrative remedy and commence the instant habeas corpus proceeding. As petitioner's claims could have been addressed by an administrative appeal, we conclude that Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition.
Having reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions, we find them to be lacking in merit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: July 09, 1998
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)