You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Faison v. Russi

Citations: 240 A.D.2d 822; 658 N.Y.S.2d 155; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6560

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; June 12, 1997; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the denial of his parole application by the Parole Board. The petitioner is serving an 8 to 25-year sentence for first-degree manslaughter, stemming from a 1983 conviction. His initial application for parole was denied in March 1995; however, this decision became moot due to a subsequent denial in March 1997, following a hearing. The court noted that even if the 1995 determination were still relevant, there were no grounds to annul it, as the Parole Board had adequately considered the necessary factors, particularly the brutal nature of the crime and the petitioner's lack of acknowledgment of his responsibility. The court's ruling was supported by Justices Mercure, Casey, Yesawich Jr., Spain, and Carpinello, and the appeal was dismissed without costs.

Legal Issues Addressed

Mootness Doctrine in Appeals

Application: The court found the appeal moot due to a subsequent denial of parole, rendering the previous denial irrelevant.

Reasoning: His initial application for parole was denied in March 1995; however, this decision became moot due to a subsequent denial in March 1997, following a hearing.

Review of Parole Board Decisions

Application: The court upheld the Parole Board's decision, indicating that all necessary factors were adequately considered, including the nature of the crime and the petitioner's lack of acknowledgment.

Reasoning: The court noted that even if the 1995 determination were still relevant, there were no grounds to annul it, as the Parole Board had adequately considered the necessary factors, particularly the brutal nature of the crime and the petitioner's lack of acknowledgment of his responsibility.