Lashway v. Evans, 110 A.D.3d 1417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Lashway v. Evans, 110 A.D.3d 1417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …irrationality bordering on impropriety at p. 1418 ✓
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Mercado v. Evans (nyappdiv, 2014-09-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mercado v. Evans
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
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 Risk and Needs Assessment instrument, and his postrelease plans (see Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A]; Matter of Partee v Evans, 117 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 901 [2014]; Matter of Lashway v Evans, 110 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MatterofMercadovEvans
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
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 Risk and Needs Assessment instrument, and his postrelease plans (see Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A]; Matter of Partee v Evans, 117 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2014], lv denied ___ NY3d ___ [Sept. 4, 2014]; Matter of Lashway v Evans, 110 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mercado v. Evans
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
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 Risk and Needs Assessment instrument, and his postrelease plans (see Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A]; Matter of Partee v Evans, 117 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 901 [2014]; Matter of Lashway v Evans, 110 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2013]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hamilton v. New York State Division
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Similarly, this Court has repeatedly held — both recently and historically — that, so long as the Board considers the factors enumerated in the statute, it is “entitled ... to place a greater emphasis on the gravity of [the] crime” (Matter of Montane v Evans, 116 AD3d 197, 203 [2014], lv granted 23 NY3d 903 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Williams v New York State Div. of Parole, 114 AD3d 992 , 992-993 [2014]; Matter of Lashway v Evans, 110 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2013]; Matter of McCaskell v Evans, 108 AD3d 926, 927 [2013]; Matter of Vigliotti v State of…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MatterofHamiltonvNewYorkStateDivisionofParole
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Similarly, this Court has repeatedly held – both recently and historically – that, so long as the Board considers the factors enumerated in the statute, it is "entitled . . . to place a greater emphasis on the gravity of [the] crime" (Matter of Montane v Evans, 116 AD3d 197, 203 [2014], lv granted 23 NY3d 903 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Williams v New York State Div. of Parole, 114 AD3d 992 , 992-993 [2014]; Matter of Lashway v Evans, 110 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2013]; Matter of McCaskell v Evans, 108 AD3d 926, 927 [2013]; Matter of Viglotti v State of N.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hamilton v. New York State Division
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Similarly, this Court has repeatedly held — both recently and historically — that, so long as the Board considers the factors enumerated in the statute, it is “entitled ... to place a greater emphasis on the gravity of [the] crime” (Matter of Montane v Evans, 116 AD3d 197, 203 [2014], lv granted 23 NY3d 903 [2014] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Williams v New York State Div. of Parole, 114 AD3d 992 , 992-993 [2014]; Matter of Lashway v Evans, 110 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2013]; Matter of McCaskell v Evans, 108 AD3d 926, 927 [2013]; Matter of Vigliotti v State of…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Olmosperez v. Evans
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
While the Board placed particular emphasis on the heinous and callous nature of the offense, we are unpersuaded that this demonstrates “irrationality bordering on impropriety” (Matter of Lashway v Evans, 110 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Olmosperez v. Evans
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
While the Board placed particular emphasis on the heinous and callous nature of the offense, we are unpersuaded that this demonstrates “irrationality bordering on impropriety” (Matter of Lashway v Evans, 110 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).
discussed Cited "see" Partee v. Evans
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
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]).
discussed Cited "see" Partee v. Evans
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
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]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Steven Lashway
v.
Andrea Evans, as Chair of the Division of Parole
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 31, 2013.
110 A.D.3d 1417
Stein.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
Stein, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Gilpatric, J.), entered November 26, 2012 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 was convicted of three counts of rape in the second degree in 1990, and was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of IOV2 to 21 years. He was paroled in 2007 and civilly confined (Matter of State of New York v Lashaway, 100 AD3d 1372 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 861 [2013]). Following his 2008 conviction for assault in the third degree, his parole was revoked and he was reincarcerated. Petitioner reappeared before the Board of Parole in 2011, which denied him re-release and ordered him held for an additional 24 months. He then commenced the present CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Board’s determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and petitioner now appeals.

[*1418] We perceive no basis upon which to disturb the Board’s decision, and accordingly affirm. The Board appropriately considered the factors set forth in Executive Law § 259-i, including petitioner’s criminal history and the nature of his crimes, prior parole violations, his prison disciplinary record, his institutional accomplishments and his postrelease plans (see Matter of Davis v Evans, 105 AD3d 1305, 1306 [2013]; Matter of Rodriguez v Evans, 102 AD3d 1049, 1050 [2013]). The Board is entitled to emphasize petitioner’s criminal history over other factors, and its decision to do so does not demonstrate “irrationality bordering on impropriety” (Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]; see Matter of Davis v Evans, 105 AD3d at 1306).

As a final matter, while the recent amendments to Executive Law § 259-c (4) applied to petitioner’s hearing, Supreme Court properly rejected his arguments in regard thereto, inasmuch as he did not allege in what manner the Board failed to comply with such amendments (see Matter of Grossman v Rankin, 43 NY2d 493, 502 [1977]; Matter of Pettus v Department of Correctional Servs., 72 AD3d 1375, 1376 [2010]; cf. Matter of Garfield v Evans, 108 AD3d 830, 830-831 [2013]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been considered and are unavailing.

Rose, J.P., McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.