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
IF PLAINTIFF, A FOREMAN, HAD THE AUTHORITY TO STOP WORK BECAUSE OF RAIN, THEN HIS CONTINUING TO WORK MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; IF PLAINTIFF HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO WORK IN THE RAIN, THEN THE WET PLYWOOD MAY HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL; BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICTING OR ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE ON THESE ISSUES, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
Planning Board’s Determination Subdivision Was Exempt from Conservation Measures Under “Grandfathering” Laws Upheld
THE WIFE’S TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE ARREARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALCULATED FROM THE DATE OF THE WIFE’S APPLICATION FOR MAINTENANCE, NOT THE PRIOR DATE WHEN SHE BECAME UNEMPLOYED (THIRD DEPT).
CERTIFICATE OF MERIT INADEQUATE, COMPLAINT DISMISSED.
THE INTOXICATED DEFENDANT’S DRIVING WHEN HE FLED FROM THE POLICE, WHILE RECKLESS, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE; DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER CONVICTION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; CONVICTION REDUCED TO MANSLAUGHTER (THIRD DEPT). ​
ADJUDICATING DEFENDANT A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER FOR ONE CHARGE DID NOT REQUIRE A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION FOR AN UNRELATED CHARGE, EVEN THOUGH BOTH CHARGES WERE PART OF A JOINT PLEA AGREEMENT (THIRD DEPT).
TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO RESENTENCING UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (THIRD DEPT).
ANY CHALLENGE BASED ON A DEFECT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION AND WAIVER OF APPEAL FOR FAILURE TO SET FORTH THE DATE AND TIME OF THE OFFENSE WAIVED BY THE GUILTY PLEA; THE PLEA WAS INVALID BECAUSE OF THE INCOMPLETE COLLOQUY (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...