At page 1259 Board's consideration of statutory factors in parole denial39 citing cases“and the fact that such consideration resulted in the denial of parole to petitioner does not reflect irrationality bordering on impropriety”
- Dawes v. Annucci, 122 A.D.3d 1059 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2014).published Turning first to the denial of parole, we conclude that the Board properly considered the relevant statutory factors, including petitioner’s criminal history, significant prison disciplinary record, COMPAS Reentry Assessment, sentencing mi…
- Dolan v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 122 A.D.3d 1058 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2014).published Here, the record reflects that respondent considered the relevant statutory factors, including petitioner’s prior criminal record, institutional programming and academic achievements, prison disciplinary record, release plans, family suppo…
- Delrosario v. Evans, 121 A.D.3d 1152 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2014).published Contrary to petitioner’s claim, in making its decision, the Board did not just consider the serious nature of petitioner’s crimes, but also took into account other relevant statutory factors, including his clean prison disciplinary record,…
- MatterofDelrosariovEvans, No. 518574 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't Oct. 2, 2014).publishedContrary to petitioner's claim, in making its decision, the Board did not just consider the serious nature of petitioner's crimes, but also took into account other relevant statutory factors, including his clean prison disciplinary record,…
- MatterofMercadovEvans, No. 518641 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't Sept. 25, 2014).publishedContrary to petitioner's argument, the Board considered the relevant statutory factors, including petitioner's criminal history and the nature of the crime, vocational and educational accomplishments, prison disciplinary record, COMPAS Ris…
- Mercado v. Evans, 120 A.D.3d 1521 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2014).published Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the Board considered the relevant statutory factors, including petitioner’s criminal history and the nature of the crime, vocational and educational accomplishments, prison disciplinary record, COMPAS Ris…
- Congelosi v. Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision, 120 A.D.3d 874 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2014).published To the extent that any of petitioner’s arguments regarding the Board’s compliance with a 2011 amendment to Executive Law § 259-c (4) were “meaningfully separable” from that challenge (id.), Supreme Court properly determined that they lacke…
- MatterofCongelosivDepartmentofCorrectionsandCommunitySupervision, No. 518169 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't Aug. 7, 2014).publishedTo the extent that any of petitioner's arguments regarding the Board's compliance with a 2011 amendment to Executive Law § 259-c (4) were "meaningfully separable" from that challenge (id.), Supreme Court properly determined that they lacke…
- Khatib v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 118 A.D.3d 1207 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2014).published We note that respondent was obligated to consider the serious nature of the crimes, as well as petitioner’s lack of remorse and failure to accept responsibility (see Matter of Partee v Evans, 117 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2014]; Matter of MacKenzie…
- Singh v. Evans, 118 A.D.3d 1209 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2014).published The Board is obligated to consider petitioner’s prior criminal record and the nature of the offenses for which he is presently incarcerated (see Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A]), “and the fact that such consideration resulted in the deni…
Show 16 more citing cases
- Matter of Copeland v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 154 A.D.3d 1157 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2017).publishedIn sum, respondent’s determination does not evince “irrationality bordering on impropriety” (Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]; see Matter of Partee v Evans, 117 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d…
- Hamilton v. New York State Div., 119 A.D.3d 1268 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2014).published However, more recent Court of Appeals jurisprudence, now well settled, propounds a more discerning standard under which such decisions should be reviewed for “irrationality bordering on impropriety” (Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d at 4…
- MatterofHamiltonvNewYorkStateDivisionofParole, No. 518301 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't July 24, 2014).publishedHowever, more recent Court of Appeals jurisprudence, now well settled, propounds a more discerning standard under which such decisions should be reviewed for "irrationality bordering on impropriety" (Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d at 4…
- MatterofRiversvEvans, No. 517795 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't July 17, 2014).publishedThe record reveals that, in denying petitioner's request for parole release, the Board considered the relevant statutory factors including the serious nature of petitioner's crime, his extensive criminal history, lengthy prison disciplinar…
- Rivers v. Evans, 119 A.D.3d 1188 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2014).published The record reveals that, in denying petitioner’s request for parole release, the Board considered the relevant statutory factors including the serious nature of petitioner’s crime, his extensive criminal history, lengthy prison disciplinar…
- Rivera v. New York State Div., 119 A.D.3d 1107 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2014).published The COMPAS instrument, however, is only one factor that the Board was required to consider in evaluating petitioner’s request (see Executive Law §§ 259-c [4]; 259-i [2] [c] [A]; see also Matter of Partee v Evans, 117 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2014]…
- MatterofRiveravNewYorkStateDivisionofParole, No. 517069 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't July 10, 2014).publishedThe COMPAS instrument, however, is only one factor that the Board was required to consider in evaluating petitioner's request (see Executive Law §§ 259-c [4]; 259-i [2] [c] [A]; see also Matter of Partee v Evans, 117 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2014]…
- Matter of Borges v. Stanford, 127 A.D.3d 1491 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2015).published
- Matter of Hill v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 130 A.D.3d 1130 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2015).published
- Matter of Feilzer v. New York State Div. of Parole, 131 A.D.3d 1321 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2015).published
- Matter of Furman v. Annucci, 138 A.D.3d 1269 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).published
- Matter of Paniagua v. Stanford, 153 A.D.3d 1018 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2017).published
- Matter of Gonzalvo v. Stanford, 153 A.D.3d 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2017).published
- Matter of Beodeker v. Stanford, 2018 NY Slip Op 6164 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2018).published
- James v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 136 A.D.3d 1089 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2016).published
- Mays v. Stanford, 150 A.D.3d 1521 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2017).published
At page 1258 Considering the deliberate nature of the murder3 citing cases
- MatterofMolinarvNewYorkStateDivisionofParole, No. 518255 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't July 17, 2014).published The Board properly considered the deliberate nature of the murder (see Matter of Partee v Evans, 117 AD3d 1258, 1258 [2014]), for which petitioner continues to deny responsibility.
- Molinar v. New York State Div., 119 A.D.3d 1214 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2014).published The Board properly considered the deliberate nature of the murder (see Matter of Partee v Evans, 117 AD3d 1258, 1258 [2014]), for which petitioner continues to deny responsibility.
v.
Andrea Evans
[*1259] Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McGrath, J.), entered July 17, 2013 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.
Petitioner is presently serving a prison sentence of 25 years to life as the result of his conviction for murder in the second degree. He reappeared before the Board of Parole in June 2012 and, following a hearing, the Board denied his application for parole release and ordered him held for an additional 24 months. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding after he failed to receive a timely response to his administrative appeal. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.
We affirm. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, respondent complied with a 2011 amendment to Executive Law § 259-c (4) by issuing a memorandum to Board members that “sufficiently establishe[d] the requisite procedures for ‘incorporating] risks and needs principles’ into the process of making parole release decisions” (Matter of Montane v Evans, 116 AD3d 197, 202 [2014], lv granted 23 NY3d 903 [2014], quoting Executive Law § 259-c [4]). The Board considered the relevant statutory factors, including petitioner’s disciplinary record—which includes a recent infraction involving violent conduct—“positive program participation, release plans and, significantly, his COMPAS assessment regarding the issues of risk to society, rehabilitation efforts and needs for successful re-entry into the community” (Matter of Montane v Evans, 116 AD3d at 203; see Executive Law §§ 259-c [4]; 259-i [2] [c] [A]). The Board is also obligated to consider petitioner’s prior criminal record and the brutal nature of the offense for which he is presently incarcerated (see Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A]), and the fact that such consideration resulted in the denial of parole to petitioner does not reflect “irrationality bordering on impropriety” (Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]; see Matter of Lashway v Evans, 110 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2013]).
We have considered petitioner’s remaining contention and find it to be lacking in merit.
Lahtinen, J.P, Stein, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.