AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

In the Matter of JOSEPH MENECHINO, Appellant, v. DIVISION OF PAROLE, NEW YORK CITY, et al., Respondents.

Order affirmed, without costs, in the following memorandum: The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs, on the sole ground that the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 was barred by the four-months period of limitation prescribed (CPLR 217). The court did not reach or consider the petitioner's argument that he had a constitutional right to be represented by counsel in a parole revocation proceeding. Our determination is, however, without prejudice to any other proceeding which the petitioner may be advised to institute.

Concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, BREITEL, JASEN and GIBSON.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF MENECHINO v. DIVISION OF PAROLE
(Feb 26, 1970)