Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

Boddie v. New York State Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 18, 2002 · Mercure

293 A.D.2d 884; 740 N.Y.S.2d 247; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3822

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Boddie v. New York State Division of Parole (District Court, S.D. New York 2003)
Boddie v. New York State Division of Parole (District Court, S.D. New York 2003)
Boddie v. New York State Division of Parole (District Court, S.D. New York 2003)
Matter of Mayeri v. Commissioner of the N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehs. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Sawyer v. Travis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
People ex rel. McDuffie v. Rabideau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Bodie v. Morgenthau (District Court, S.D. New York 2004)
Robinson v. Bennett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

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

Mercure, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Keegan, J.), entered July 20, 2001 in Albany County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Petitioner contends that the Board of Parole erred by failing to postpone his parole hearing in order to await a corrected version of his presentence report. Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition because, at the time petitioner commenced this proceeding, he had not yet exhausted his administrative remedies (see, Matter of Howard v Travis, 268 AD2d 832). The fact that he may have since perfected his administrative appeal does not absolve him of that requirement or validate the petition nunc pro tunc (see, Matter of Whitehead v Russi, 201 AD2d 825). In any event, were we to reach the merits, we would uphold the determination denying petitioner’s request for parole. Nothing in the Board’s decision indicates that in reaching its determination, the Board relied on the information that was later deleted from the presentence report (see, Matter of Richburg v New York State Bd. of Parole, 284 *885AD2d 685, appeal dismissed and lv denied 97 NY2d 636). Rather, the Board was persuaded by the heinous nature of petitioner’s offenses and the fact that a weapon was involved.

Crew III, Peters, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.