67 N.Y.2d 197 (1986)
In a habeas corpus proceeding challenging parole revocation, issues of fact impacting the legality of detention must be determined by the court issuing the writ, not the Parole Board.
Summary
Robertson, a parolee, sought habeas corpus relief, alleging his detention for parole violation was illegal. The Supreme Court initially scheduled a hearing but later transferred the matter to the Parole Board for determination. Robertson appealed, arguing the transfer was improper. The New York Court of Appeals held that factual issues in habeas corpus proceedings must be resolved by the court, not delegated to the Parole Board. Transferring the matter to the Parole Board was an appealable final order, and the case was remitted for a court hearing on the factual disputes.
Facts
Robertson was paroled in 1977 after serving time for manslaughter. In 1981, he was arrested on felony charges and indicted for weapons possession, leading to a parole violation warrant. He waived his right to a preliminary parole hearing. He was later acquitted of the weapons charges but remained incarcerated. He filed a civil suit against the city and arresting officers. Robertson then filed a habeas corpus petition arguing the warrant was issued in bad faith as retaliation for his civil suit, his waiver of the preliminary hearing was involuntary and that his final revocation hearing was untimely.
Procedural History
Robertson filed a habeas corpus petition in Supreme Court, Queens County. After initially setting the matter for a hearing, the Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to the Parole Board based on an Appellate Division decision. Robertson’s request for subpoenas duces tecum was denied, subject to renewal before the Parole Board. The Appellate Division dismissed Robertson’s appeals from both orders as non-appealable. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether, in a habeas corpus proceeding challenging parole revocation, the court can transfer the determination of factual issues regarding the legality of detention to the Parole Board, or whether the court itself must resolve those issues.
Holding
No, because CPLR 7009(c) directs the court to hear the evidence and proceed in a summary manner, and CPLR 410 requires that triable issues of fact be tried by the court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the summary nature of habeas corpus proceedings, designed to swiftly address unlawful detention. The court cited CPLR 7009(c), stating that the court must “hear the evidence produced in support of and against detention and to dispose of the proceeding as justice requires.” The Court further reasoned that designating habeas corpus as a special proceeding invokes CPLR 410, mandating that “if triable issues of fact are raised they shall be tried forthwith and the court shall make a final determination thereon”. The court criticized delegating fact-finding to the Parole Board as contrary to statutory directives and established practice. The Court highlighted that such delegation improperly changes the standard of judicial review from weight of the evidence to whether substantial evidence existed before the Parole Board. The Court stated, “The delegation to the Parole Board of the fact-finding function on which turns release on habeas corpus or dismissal and further detention was, thus, improper for at least three reasons. First, it was contrary to the statutory directions that ‘[t]he court * * * hear the evidence’ and ‘proceed in a summary manner’ (CPLR 7009 [c] [emphasis supplied]). Second, it injects a procedure neither contemplated by the statute, which calls for either judgment of discharge (CPLR 7010 [a]) or remand of the person detained (CPLR 7010 [c]), nor recognized by prior precedent. Third, and most importantly, it changes the process from one in which the factual determination is made by a Trial Judge, reviewable as to the weight of the evidence by the Appellate Division and, when that body disagrees with the trial court, by this court as well, to one in which the only questions to be decided by any of the courts are whether there was substantial evidence before the Parole Board to support its determination and whether required procedural rules were followed”. The court clarified that an evidentiary hearing is not automatically required; it is unnecessary if no triable issues of fact exist, but that the determination must be made by the Supreme Court, not the Parole Board.