Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

Prodromidis v. McCoy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 15, 2002

292 A.D.2d 769; 738 N.Y.S.2d 630

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Bidwell v. Stanford (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Johnson v. Alexander (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Boyd v. Travis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Scaccia v. Martinez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)

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

CPLR article 78 proceeding transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Corning, J.), entered August 31, 2001, to annul a determination revoking petitioner’s parole.

It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding to annul a determination revoking his parole based upon his failure to complete an aftercare drug program that was mandated as a condition of parole. The determination is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Westcott v New York State Bd. of Parole, 256 AD2d 1179, 1180), including relevant and probative hearsay properly received in evidence and relied upon by the Administrative Law Judge (see, 9 NYCRR 8005.2 *770[a]; People ex rel. McGee v Walters, 62 NY2d 317, 319; People ex rel. Wilt v Meloni, 170 AD2d 989, lv dismissed 77 NY2d 973; People ex rel. Saafir v Mantello, 163 AD2d 824, 825). We reject the contention that petitioner was denied his right to confront a witness against him (see, People ex rel. Martin v Warden, Ossining Correctional Facility, 133 AD2d 134, 135; cf., Matter of Layne v New York State Bd. of Parole, 256 AD2d 990, 991, lv dismissed 93 NY2d 886, rearg denied 93 NY2d 1000; Matter of Velez v New York State Div. of Parole, 246 AD2d 833, 834, lv denied 91 NY2d 813). The final hearing was conducted in a timely manner, taking into account adjournments granted at the request of petitioner’s counsel (see, Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [i]; 9 NYCRR 8005.17 [c] [3]; People ex rel. Cortez v Travis, 275 AD2d 1021, 1021-1022; People ex rel. Speed v Netzel, 225 AD2d 1087, 1088; People ex rel. Walker v Richardson, 174 AD2d 1061).

Petitioner’s remaining contention is unpreserved for our review (see, Matter of Williams v New York State Bd. of Parole, 277 AD2d 617) and in any event lacks merit (see, People ex rel. Lee v New York State Bd. of Parole, 165 AD2d 959, 960-961). Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.