Hyperlawhypertext legal database Linares v. Evans 26 N.Y.3d 1012

← Cases

Linares v. Evans

26 N.Y.3d 1012 Court N.Y. Decision date 2015-10-22 English

Judges Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Pigott, Rivera, AbdusSalaam and Fahey concur; Judge Stein taking no part.

Contents

Majority

p. 1012
[42 NE3d 212, 20 NYS3d 542]
In the Matter of Jorge L. Linares, Appellant, v Andrea W. Evans, as Chair of the Board of Parole, Respondent.
Argued September 8, 2015;
decided October 22, 2015
p. 1013
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Alfred O’Connor, New York State Defenders Association, Albany, and Alan Rosenthal, Center for Community Alternatives, Syracuse, for appellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu, Barbara D. Underwood, Andrea Oser and Nancy A. Spiegel of counsel), for respondent.
Morningside Heights Legal Services, Inc., New York City (Philip M. Genty of counsel), for Columbia Law School Prisoners and Families Clinic, amicus curiae.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York City (Boris Bershteyn and Ramya Ravishankar of counsel), for Tim Brennan and others, amici curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner challenges the validity and potential application of certain regulations of the Board of Parole which address risks and needs assessments and related matters (see 9 NYCRR 8002.3 [a]). However, the Board promulgated those regulations

p. 1014
after its determination here and has not had an opportunity to consider petitioner’s arguments. Given the impact that a determination of petitioner’s claims will certainly have in this and future cases, the more prudent course is to leave the propriety of the regulations to be raised in the first instance before the Board (see Walton v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 8 NY3d 186 , 197 [2007]; Schiavone v City of New York, 92 NY2d 308 , 317 [1998]; see also Matter of Red Hook / Gowanus Chamber of Commerce v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals, 5 NY3d 452 , 461-462 [2005]). Because, under the particular circumstances of this case, none of petitioner’s statutory and regulatory claims are reviewable on appeal at this juncture, we express no opinion on the merits of those claims.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Pigott, Rivera, AbdusSalaam and Fahey concur; Judge Stein taking no part.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Cases cited