Keating v. New York State Division of Parole
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Milling v. Travis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Aviles v. Travis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Solimine v. New York State Board of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Mendez v. Travis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Hinkhaus v. Travis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Davila v. Travis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Diaz v. Travis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Atkins v. New York State Board of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Estabrook v. Travis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Jarez v. Travis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Archer v. Travis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Alicea v. New York State Division of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Brown v. Division of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Purcell v. New York State Board of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Sheridan, J.), entered December 9, 1997 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request for parole.
Petitioner, a prison inmate, has reappeared before the State Board of Parole since the parole release hearing giving rise to this appeal and his request for parole release has again been denied. In view of petitioner’s reappearance before the Board, the instant appeal is now moot and must be dismissed (see, Matter of Herrera v New York State Bd. of Parole, 246 AD2d 703; Matter of Smith v Donohue, 243 AD2d 797). Nevertheless, were we to consider the merits of the petition, we would find that the Board’s April 1997 determination was neither arbitrary nor capricious and is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.