You are here: / / Division of Parole’s Mistake Which Resulted in the Incarceration...
, , ,

Division of Parole’s Mistake Which Resulted in the Incarceration of the Claimant Was Privileged—Claimant’s Action for False Imprisonment Properly Dismissed

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, determined a mistake made by the Division of Parole, which resulted in claimant’s prosecution and imprisonment for a violation of parole at a time when his parole had been terminated, was privileged.  Therefore, the claimant’s action for false imprisonment was properly dismissed:

To establish a claim of false imprisonment, claimant must demonstrate, among other things, that the confinement was not privileged … . “To that end, it is settled that ‘[a]n otherwise unlawful detention is privileged where the confinement was by arrest under a valid process issued by a court having jurisdiction or parole authorities'” … . Here, there is no dispute that claimant’s confinement was pursuant to parole violation warrants that were valid on their face. Yet, according to claimant, because his sentence should have terminated by law on March 10, 2005, the Division acted without jurisdiction when it commenced the April 2005 parole revocation proceeding, revoked his parole and thereafter subjected him to various periods of incarceration.

“‘There is a distinction between acts performed in excess of jurisdiction and acts performed in the clear absence of any jurisdiction over the subject matter. The former is privileged, the latter is not'” … .

While the [Division of Parole’s] ….interpretation of Executive Law former § 259-j (3-a) may well have been mistaken, any such “error in judgment neither negates nor defeats defendant’s claim of privilege” … . The statute vested the Division with the authority to grant a termination of sentence under certain described circumstances, and interpreting the provisions that implement such power is a legitimate part of the Division’s function .. . The Division made a reasoned judgment …[which] was neither inconsistent with nor contrary to extant judicial authority … . Thus, at most, the Division “acted in excess of its jurisdiction, not in the complete absence [thereof], and its conduct therefore was privileged”… . Marsh v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 03320, 3rd Dept 5-8-14

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SPECTATOR PROTECTION AT A HOCKEY RINK WAS SUFFICIENT, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PUCK (THIRD DEPT).
COUNTY COURT FOUND THAT DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION TO SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH THE VICTIM WAS NOT CORROBORATED AND DISMISSED THE RAPE COUNTS; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT EXPLAINED THE CRITERIA FOR CORROBORATION EVIDENCE AND FOUND IT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE RAPE CHARGES (THIRD DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RAYMOND F AND THE CHILD; THEREFORE RAYMOND F’S REQUEST FOR A GENETIC MARKER TEST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER CARE FACILITY WAS ENTITLED TO THE UNDERLYING DATA USED BY THE OFFICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES TO CALCULATE MEDICAID REIMBURSEMENT RATES; MATTER REMITTED FOR RECALCULATION WITH AN EXPLANATION OF THE FACTORS CONSIDERED (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO CONFLICTING MEDICAL OPINIONS, HERE DEALING WITH WEANING CLAIMANT FROM OPIOID PAIN KILLERS (THIRD DEPT).
Sentencing Court Need Not Inform Defendant of Possible Consequences of Violating Postrelease Supervision
THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER MADE A LEFT TURN INTO TO THE PATH OF DEFENDANT’S ONCOMING CAR WITHOUT CHECKING FOR ONCOMING TRAFFIC; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE LADDER SLID OR SHIFTED AND FELL WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF DID NOT NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE (THIRD 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

Village’s Opting to Remove Petitioner’s Land from the Land Available... Former Parishioners Did Not Have Standing to Challenge Sale of Church Property...