§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Jorge L. Linares, Appellant,v.Andrea W. Evans,, Respondent.

Brief

12 Cited authorities

  1. Garfield v. Evans

    108 A.D.3d 830 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 50 times

    2013-07-3 In the Matter of Andre GARFIELD, Appellant, v. Andrea EVANS, as Chair of the Division of Parole, Respondent. Andre Garfield, Sonyea, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank K. Walsh of counsel), for respondent. Andre Garfield, Sonyea, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank K. Walsh of counsel), for respondent. Before: ROSE, J.P., SPAIN, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered

  2. Shark v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole Chair

    110 A.D.3d 1134 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 28 times

    2013-10-10 In the Matter of Davey SHARK, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE CHAIR, Andrea D. Evans, Respondent. Davey Shark, Otisville, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Laura Etlinger of counsel), for respondent. Davey Shark, Otisville, appellant pro se.Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Laura Etlinger of counsel), for respondent. Before: ROSE, J.P., LAHTINEN, SPAIN and EGAN JR., JJ. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Mott, J.)

  3. Linares v. Evans

    112 A.D.3d 1056 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 23 times

    2013-12-5 In the Matter of Jorge L. LINARES, Appellant, v. Andrea W. EVANS, as Chair of the Division of Parole, Respondent. Jorge L. Linares, Rome, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondent. Jorge L. Linares, Rome, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of counsel), for respondent. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McDonough, J.), entered June 25, 2013 in Albany County, which dismissed

  4. Siao-Pao v. Dennison

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 6872 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 27 times

    No. 200 SSM 27. Decided September 16, 2008. APPEAL from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered March 11, 2008. The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, affirmed an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.; op 2006 NY Slip Op 30377 [U]), entered in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, which had denied the petition to annul the Parole Board's determination denying petitioner's

  5. Matter of Lucas v. Scully

    71 N.Y.2d 399 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 48 times
    Stating that prisons may lawfully prohibit outgoing mail that is not intended for the addressee

  6. Convenience Stores v. Urbach

    92 N.Y.2d 204 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 26 times
    Concluding that New York's failure to enforce the tax laws against on-reservation sales to non-Indians does not constitute a form of race-based discrimination, reasoning that the state may adopt laws and policies that reflect or effectuate federal laws designed to read-just the allocation of jurisdiction over Indians

  7. Thomches v. Evans

    108 A.D.3d 724 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 9 times

    2013-07-24 In the Matter of Thomas THOMCHES, appellant, v. Andrea EVANS, etc., respondent. Thomas Thomches, Otisville, N.Y., appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Valerie Figueredo of counsel), for respondent. Thomas Thomches, Otisville, N.Y., appellant pro se.Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Richard Dearing and Valerie Figueredo of counsel), for respondent. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination

  8. Morris v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision

    40 Misc. 3d 226 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013)   Cited 6 times

    2013-04-12 In the Matter of Henry “Hank” MORRIS, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, Brian Fischer, Commissioner of New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, New York Board of Parole, Andrea W. Evans, Chairwoman of the New York Board of Parole, Respondents. Orlee Goldfeld, Esq., Hollyer Brady, LLP, New York, for Petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Esq., Attorney General of the

  9. Siao-Pao v. Dennison

    51 A.D.3d 105 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 10 times

    No. 1683. March 11, 2008. APPEAL from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered September 22, 2006. The order and judgment denied the petition to annul the Parole Board's determination denying parole. Matter of Siao-Pao v Dennison, 2006 NY Slip Op 30377(U), affirmed. Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant. Leopold Siao-Pao, appellant pro se. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York City ( Robert C. Weisz and Michelle

  10. Patterson v. Evans

    106 A.D.3d 1456 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 4 times

    2013-05-3 In the Matter of Emmanuel PATTERSON, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Andrea W. EVANS, Chairwoman, New York State Division of Parole, and Malcolm R. Cully, Superintendent, Collins Correctional Facility, Respondents–Appellants. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Victor Paladino of Counsel), for Respondents–Appellants. Emmanuel Patterson, Petitioner–Respondent Pro Se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Victor Paladino of Counsel), for Respondents–Appellants. Emmanuel Patterson

  11. Section 8002.3 - Post-interview requirements and considerations

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9 § 8002.3   Cited 93 times

    (a) Granting of Release. If the Board grants the inmate release following its interview and deliberations, it shall impose the initial set of conditions that will govern his or her community supervision in accordance with the pertinent provisions of article 12-b of the Executive Law. (b) Denial of Release. If parole is not granted, the inmate shall be informed in writing, within two weeks of his or her interview, of the decision denying him or her parole and the factors and reasons for such denial