§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Pablo Costello, Appellant,v.New York State Board of Parole et al., Respondents.

Brief

11 Cited authorities

  1. Jago v. Van Curen

    454 U.S. 14 (1981)   Cited 638 times
    Holding that no liberty interest in the expectancy of parole is created under a statute in which the parole decision is discretionary

  2. Matter of Silmon v. Travis

    95 N.Y.2d 470 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 617 times
    Stating that, under New York law, Alford pleas are permitted only where “the record before the court contains strong evidence of actual guilt,” and observing that they “may generally be used for the same purposes as any other conviction,” including “in determining predicate felon status for sentencing”

  3. Barna v. Travis

    239 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 206 times
    Holding that the New York State parole process creates no legitimate expectation of release; and, therefore, an inmate seeking release is not afforded the full panoply of procedural due process protection

  4. In Matter of Elcor Health Svcs. Inc. v. Novello

    100 N.Y.2d 273 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 68 times
    In Elcor, the Court of Appeals determined that the Public Health Law supported the actual improvement standard, which would encourage "efficiently and economically operated facilities" (Public Health Law § 2807) by allowing reimbursement only for those patients who were properly provided restorative therapy, and, as a result, showed actual improvement.

  5. Green v. McCall

    822 F.2d 284 (2d Cir. 1987)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that "the liberty interest of the presumptive parolee occupies a lower place in the inmate-liberty-interest continuum than does the interest of a parole grantee"

  6. In the Mtr. of Pugh v. N.Y. St. Bd. of Parole

    19 A.D.3d 991 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 12 times

    97518. June 30, 2005. Rose, J. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County), to review a determination of respondent Board of Parole which rescinded petitioner's open parole release date and imposed a hold period of 24 months. Katy Karlovitz, Syracuse, for petitioner. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Dorothy E. Hill of counsel), for respondents. Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain and Mugglin, JJ., concur. In

  7. Diaz v. Evans

    90 A.D.3d 1371 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 6 times

    2011-12-22 In the Matter of Jose DIAZ, Petitioner, v. Andrea W. EVANS, as Chair of the Division of Parole, Respondent. Jose Diaz, Beacon, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), for respondent. LAHTINEN Jose Diaz, Beacon, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), for respondent. Before: MERCURE, Acting P.J., SPAIN, LAHTINEN, MALONE JR. and KAVANAGH, JJ. LAHTINEN, J. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article

  8. In re Council of the City, N.Y. v. Public Ser. Comm.

    781 N.E.2d 886 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 14 times

    No. 109 Decided October 22, 2002. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, entered September 20, 2001, which modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed an order of the Supreme Court (George B. Ceresia, Jr., J.; op 185 Misc.2d 230), entered in Albany County in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissing petitioner's first and second causes of action and that portion of the third cause

  9. Ortiz v. Board of Parole

    239 A.D.2d 52 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 9 times

    February 4, 1998 Gary B. Friedman, New York City, for petitioner. Erin Peradotto, Buffalo ( Martin Hotvet of counsel), for respondent. BOEHM, J. In 1992, petitioner was convicted of four counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and conspiracy in the second degree. Petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate term of incarceration of 88 1/3 years to life imprisonment. The Presentence Investigation Report

  10. Section 8002.5 - Rescission

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9 § 8002.5   Cited 30 times
    Providing that, "[a]fter an inmate has received a parole release date, situations may arise which would cause the board to reconsider its decision to grant parole release."

  11. Section 8002.4 - Victim impact statement

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 9 § 8002.4   Cited 9 times

    (a) Parole Board policy and intent. It is the policy of the Board of Parole that crime victims are an integral part of the criminal justice process, that they should be treated with fairness, sensitivity and dignity at all times, and that victims of the most serious crimes should be permitted an opportunity to make an oral statement to a member of the Board of Parole in a setting that permits confidentiality and a nonthreatening atmosphere. The board's intention is to create a meaningful opportunity