You are here: / / FOR INMATES WHO COMMITTED CRIMES AS JUVENILES, THEIR YOUTH MUST BE TAKEN...

FOR INMATES WHO COMMITTED CRIMES AS JUVENILES, THEIR YOUTH MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN PAROLE DETERMINATIONS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s ruling sending the matter back for a de novo parole interview. Petitioner was 17 when he committed murder and is now 50. Pursuant to a decision from the 3rd Department, the parole board has decided to include an inmate’s youth at the time of the crime in making parole determinations:

… [W]e deem it appropriate to affirm the judgment that annulled the Parole Board’s determination and remitted the matter to the Parole Board for a de novo interview before a different panel. The petitioner is entitled to a meaningful opportunity for release in which the Parole Board considers, inter alia, his youth at the time of the commission of the crimes and its attendant circumstances … . Matter of Putland v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2018 NY Slip Op 00837, Second Dept 2-7-18

CRIMINAL LAW (PAROLE, JUVENILES, FOR INMATES WHO COMMITTED CRIMES AS JUVENILES, THEIR YOUTH MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN PAROLE DETERMINATIONS (SECOND DEPT))PAROLE (JUVENILE OFFENDERS, FOR INMATES WHO COMMITTED CRIMES AS JUVENILES, THEIR YOUTH MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN PAROLE DETERMINATIONS (SECOND DEPT)

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL SUCCESSFULLY PURSUED A MISIDENTIFICATION DEFENSE THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL BUT CONCEDED THE ISSUE IN SUMMATION, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; A WITNESS MAY IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT AT TRIAL DESPITE A PROCEDURALLY-DEFECTIVE PRE-TRIAL IDENTIFICATION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PARTIES WERE DIVORCED IN COLORADO, THEY AND THEIR CHILDREN RESIDE IN NEW YORK; THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED COLORADO LAW IN DETERMINING FATHER’S SUPPORT OBLIGATION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTED ASSAULT CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE; DEFENDANT DRIVER IS EXPECTED TO SEE WHAT SHOULD BE SEEN; WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITIY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DEFENSE AND THE VALIDITY OF THE RELEASE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT FITNESS CENTER; ALLEGEDLY, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN THE TRAINER INSTRUCTED HIM TO ATTEMPT A BALANCING EXERCISE (SECOND DEPT).
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION’S EXERCISE OF RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL PROPER UNDER THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO INDICATE PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING A BICYCLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT PROPERLY GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL AS HE WALKED THROUGH A “ROOM,” NOT A “PASSAGEWAY;” THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION PROHIBITING OBSTRUCTIONS IN A “PASSAGEWAY” SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF A CONTRACT TO PROVIDE MEDICAL SERVICES PROPERLY... PROSECUTOR’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE DEFENSE WITH INFORMATION ABOUT FAVORABLE...