People Ex Rel. Martinez v. New York State Board of Parole
Cases that cite this one
19 later published cases cite this decision.
- People ex rel. Richman v. Warden, Bronx House of Detention (New York Supreme Court 1984)
- People ex rel. Day v. New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervision (New York Supreme Court 2012)
- Wyche v. New York State Division of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Peek v. Dennison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- People ex rel. McDaniel v. Travis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- People v. Travis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- People ex rel. Bronson v. Meloni (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- People ex rel. Johnson v. New York State Board of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- People ex rel. Gonzalez v. Warden of New York Correctional Institution for Men (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- People ex rel. Rodriguez v. Warden (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- People ex rel. Arena v. Meloni (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- People ex rel. Mott v. Kalamanka (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- People ex rel. Martinez v. Walters (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- People ex rel. Herrera v. New York State Division of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- People ex rel. Walker v. New York State Board of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- People ex rel. Johnson v. New York State Board of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- People ex rel. Cleveland v. New York State Division of Parole (New York Supreme Court 1983)
- MATTER OF WILLIAMS v. Hammock (N.Y. 1982)
- People ex rel. Barrett v. New York State Board of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.
Relator’s final parole revocation hearing was adjourned three times, at least two of the continuances being at relator’s request. On the 81st day, the hearing was held in the absence of relator who was attending a criminal trial. The hearing officer noted the proximity of the 90-day limit (see Executive Law, § 259-i, subd 3, par [f], cl [i]) and *590 determined to “proceed in absentia, subject to the inmate’s rights of cross-examination at some later date, if he so desires.” Relator’s parole was revoked. His petition for a writ of habeas corpus was granted to the extent of ordering a new hearing.
Relator argues that his right to due process was violated by his hearing in absentia and that, the 90-day period having expired, the only proper remedy is vacatur of the warrant. Inasmuch as there is no evidence of bad faith here by respondent, any shortcomings in the revocation hearing raise only a question of irregularity in the statutory procedures. Under the circumstances, there is no logical basis for holding that the warrant must be vacated merely because a new hearing could not be held within the 90-day limit. A new hearing adequately protects relator’s rights.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.