◆ SpookStack

: Be wt cnet WE 92-911 . ae mat’ his “Smiprtsonmént’ . 1:4 He- dec: | ~~ the’ Parolé Board: that “GALANTE: following conviction _ on another. felony, while. on his. first parole, must “serve the balance remaining on. his: first commitment. , from the date of his release on parole, January 18,—— 1930, is contrary to law, under Chapter 736 of the ~. Laws of 1926, amending the then Prison Law. That — GALANTE was entitled to be credited with the time on parole from January 18, 1930, to December 24, 1930, and should have been released May 11, 19hh. oo ” ‘ This writ: was dismissed at the Special ‘term of me ‘@linton County Court in July, 1944, and GALANTE was. remanded o ' to the custody of the Warden of Clinton ° ‘Prison. - oye Notice of Appeal from the odder of Judge O'CONNELL was filed in the office of the Clerk of Clinton County on Avueust 24, 1944, On November 15, 1944, the Appeal: was denied - at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Judicial District, Albany, | New 2 York, : _ An Appeal to the Supreme Court | ofthe State or: New York was filed by Attorney THOMAS F. DOUGHERTY December 6,-1944, on the basis that GALANTE's prison time was not | properly computed, in that the time of his’ release on parole was not credited to him as provided in Chapter 736, Section 214, of the Laws of 1926, amending the then Prison Laws. That under Section 219 of the Correction Law, Chapter 485, Laws of _ 1928, the Legislature specifically provided that forfeiture of parole time should not apply except to “convictions of. persons sentenced on or after suly 1; 1928, | and confined to a state = prison, That GALANTE was convicted December 24, 1926, and,‘ &. under the. decision in ‘People: @x.. rel. Ingenito ysiprophye _ 7 ps @67 ALD..295, affirmed “293, N.Y," relief, Was requested. The’. “4. ©. Appeal further related that Ahe Case on“which Judge &'CONNETI's - + decision was made, and affirmed by the third Judicial: ‘Pepertiment of the Appellate Division (Dayes v. Morhous;<-267 A.D. 851); | was overruled by the Court of Appeals in its recent desision in the Ingenito case, on er A I AE A TA EEE EOI ARAN SS ESET TINE Sonay TOUT OE ee son