Opinion

AIKENS, THOMAS v. BROWN, DAWSON

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Filed
Feb 8, 2013
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 3.2%

The opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

68

KAH 11-00998

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK EX REL.

THOMAS AIKENS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAWSON BROWN, SUPERINTENDENT, GROVELAND

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

GENESEE VALLEY LEGAL AID, INC., GENESEO (JEANNIE MICHALSKI OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (FRANK BRADY OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Livingston County

(Dennis S. Cohen, A.J.), entered January 13, 2011 in a habeas corpus

proceeding. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his

petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We note at the outset that the

date on which judgment was entered is incorrect in petitioner’s notice

of appeal. The index number in the notice of appeal is correct,

however, and we exercise our discretion to treat the notice of appeal

as valid (see CPLR 5520 [c]; People v Mitchell, 93 AD3d 1173, 1173, lv

denied 19 NY3d 999; People ex rel. Cass v Khahaifa, 89 AD3d 1517,

1517-1518).

Petitioner concedes that he was released to parole supervision

before this appeal was perfected, and we thus conclude that the appeal

has been rendered moot (see People ex rel. Campolito v Hale, 70 AD3d

1474, 1474). The exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply

herein (see id.). In any event, petitioner was not deprived of due

process because he personally did not receive the decision revoking

his parole. Notice to petitioner’s attorney served as notice to

petitioner (see People ex rel. Knowles v Smith, 54 NY2d 259, 266).

“[I]t is notification, not personal notification, that is a

requirement of due process” (id.).

Entered: February 8, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.