From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Dooley v. Coughlin

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 18, 1988
530 N.E.2d 1286 (N.Y. 1988)

Opinion

Argued September 14, 1988

Decided October 18, 1988

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, John G. McCarthy, J.

Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Frederic L. Lieberman, O. Peter Sherwood, Lawrence S. Kahn and Barbara B. Butler of counsel), for appellant.

O. Thomas Boyle, County Attorney (Robert H. Cabble of counsel), for respondents.


MEMORANDUM.

Order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum of the Appellate Division ( 134 A.D.2d 350). We add only that there was no abuse of discretion in ordering that respondent must accept State-ready inmates from petitioner's custody within 14 days of sentencing unless exigent circumstances which justify a further limited delay are present in a particular case. (See also, Matter of Ayers v Coughlin, 72 N.Y.2d 346 [decided today]).

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.


Summaries of

Matter of Dooley v. Coughlin

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 18, 1988
530 N.E.2d 1286 (N.Y. 1988)
Case details for

Matter of Dooley v. Coughlin

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of EUGENE T. DOOLEY, as Sheriff of the County of Suffolk, et…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 18, 1988

Citations

530 N.E.2d 1286 (N.Y. 1988)
530 N.E.2d 1286
534 N.Y.S.2d 366

Citing Cases

PEOPLE (MOREJON) v. PAROLE BD

Since Willard was a condition of his parole, upon petitioner's restoration to parole supervision he should…

People ex Rel. Morejon v. Parole Bd.

Since Willard was a condition of his parole, upon petitioner's restoration to parole supervision he should…