Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hintze v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 26, 1978Published

1ConcurrenceTitone, J.

I have come to the conclusion that consideration solely of the offense giving rise to a detainee’s incarceration does not constitute sufficient reason for the action of a parole board in fixing either a minimum period of imprisonment or in denying release on parole (see Coralluzzo v New York State Parole Bd., 566 *849F2d 375). I concur solely upon the constraint of Matter of Sturgis v Caldwell (57 AD2d 728), Matter of Odom v Henderson (57 AD2d 710), Matter of Consilvio v New York State Bd. of Parole (57 AD2d 955) and Matter of Hergueta v New York State Parole Bd. (63 AD2d 701).

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Consilvio v. New York State Board of ParoleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
  2. Odom v. HendersonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
  3. Sturgis v. CaldwellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
  4. Hergueta v. New York State Parole BoardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978