required statutory factors in New York

2019Supreme Court properly denied the petition inasmuch as the record reflects that the Board considered the required statutory factors and adequately set forth its reasons for denying petitioner's application ( see Matter of Siao-Pao v Dennison , 11 NY3d 777, 778 [2008], rearg denied 11 NY3d 885 [2008]; Matter of Hamilton v New York State Div. of Parole , 119 AD3d 1268 , 1272-1273 [3d Dept 2014]) and inasmuch as the Board's determination does not exhibit "irrationality bordering on impropriety" ( Matter of Kenefick v Sticht , 139 AD3d 1380, 1381 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 902 [2016] [inte

2017Contrary to petitioner’s further contention, Supreme Court properly denied the petition inasmuch as the Board considered the required statutory factors and adequately set forth its reasons for denying petitioner’s application (see Matter of Siao-Pao v Dennison, 11 NY3d 777, 778 [2008]), and inasmuch as the Board’s determination does not exhibit “irrationality bordering on impropriety” (Matter of Kenefick v Sticht, 139 AD3d 1380, 1381 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 902 [2016]).

2016Here, we conclude upon our review of the record that the Board considered the required statutory factors and adequately set forth its reasons for denying petitioner’s application for release (see Matter of Siao-Pao v Dennison, 11 NY3d 777, 778 [2008], rearg denied 11 NY3d 885 [2008]; Matter of Patterson v Evans, 106 AD3d 1456, 1457 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 912 [2013]).

2016Here, we conclude upon our review of the record that the Board considered the required statutory factors and adequately set forth its reasons for denying petitioner’s application for release (see Matter of Siao-Pao v Dennison, 11 NY3d 777, 778 [2008], rearg denied 11 NY3d 885 [2008]; Matter of Patterson v Evans, 106 AD3d 1456, 1457 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 912 [2013]).

2013Here, we conclude upon our review of the hearing transcript and the Board’s written decision that the Board considered the required statutory factors and adequately set forth its reasons for denying petitioner’s application for release (see Matter of Siao-Pao v Dennison, 11 NY3d 777, 778 [2008], rearg denied 11 NY3d 885 [2008]; Matter of Galbreith v New York State Bd. of Parole, 58 AD3d 731, 732 [2009]; Matter of Romer v Dennison, 24 AD3d 866, 868 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 706 [2006]).

2013Here, we conclude upon our review of the hearing transcript and the Board’s written decision that the Board considered the required statutory factors and adequately set forth its reasons for denying petitioner’s application for release (see Matter of Siao-Pao v Dennison, 11 NY3d 777, 778 [2008], rearg denied 11 NY3d 885 [2008]; Matter of Galbreith v New York State Bd. of Parole, 58 AD3d 731, 732 [2009]; Matter of Romer v Dennison, 24 AD3d 866, 868 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 706 [2006]).

2013Here, we conclude upon our review of the hearing transcript and the Board’s written decision that the Board considered the required statutory factors and adequately set forth its reasons for denying petitioner’s application for release (see Matter of Siao-Pao v Dennison, 11 NY3d 777, 778 [2008], rearg denied 11 NY3d 885 [2008]; Matter of Galbreith v New York State Bd. of Parole, 58 AD3d 731, 732 [2009]; Matter of Romer v Dennison, 24 AD3d 866, 868 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 706 [2006]).

2013Here, we conclude upon our review of the hearing transcript and the Board’s written decision that the Board considered the required statutory factors and adequately set forth its reasons for denying petitioner’s application for release (see Matter of Siao-Pao v Dennison, 11 NY3d 777, 778 [2008], rearg denied 11 NY3d 885 [2008]; Matter of Galbreith v New York State Bd. of Parole, 58 AD3d 731, 732 [2009]; Matter of Romer v Dennison, 24 AD3d 866, 868 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 706 [2006]).

2019Supreme Court properly denied the petition inasmuch as the record reflects that the Board considered the required statutory factors and adequately set forth its reasons for denying petitioner's application ( see Matter of Siao-Pao v Dennison , 11 NY3d 777, 778 [2008], rearg denied 11 NY3d 885 [2008]; Matter of Hamilton v New York State Div. of Parole , 119 AD3d 1268 , 1272-1273 [3d Dept 2014]) and inasmuch as the Board's determination does not exhibit "irrationality bordering on impropriety" ( Matter of Kenefick v Sticht , 139 AD3d 1380, 1381 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 902 [2016] [inte

2017Contrary to petitioner’s further contention, Supreme Court properly denied the petition inasmuch as the Board considered the required statutory factors and adequately set forth its reasons for denying petitioner’s application (see Matter of Siao-Pao v Dennison, 11 NY3d 777, 778 [2008]), and inasmuch as the Board’s determination does not exhibit “irrationality bordering on impropriety” (Matter of Kenefick v Sticht, 139 AD3d 1380, 1381 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 902 [2016]).

2013The record demonstrates that respondent considered the required statutory factors and adequately set forth its reasons for the denial, which include its conclusion that petitioner’s release would “tend to deprecate the seriousness of the instant offense(s) and undermine respect for the law” (see Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A]; Matter of Silmon, 95 NY2d at 476 ).

2013The record demonstrates that respondent considered the required statutory factors and adequately set forth its reasons for the denial, which include its conclusion that petitioner’s release would “tend to deprecate the seriousness of the instant offense(s) and undermine respect for the law” (see Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A]; Matter of Silmon, 95 NY2d at 476 ).

2019Contrary to petitioner's contention, the Board took into account petitioner's deportation order; it was, however, only one of the factors under consideration in the Board's determination ( see generally Matter of King v New York State Div. of Parole , 190 AD2d 423, 431 [1st Dept 1993], affd 83 NY2d 788 [1994]).

2013(See Matter of Rios v New York State Div. of Parole, 15 Misc 3d 1107[A] , 2007 NY Slip Op 50529[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County 2007], citing Matter of King v New York State Div. of Parole, 190 AD2d at 434 .) Specifically, the record demonstrates that the Board inexplicably failed to consider and weigh myriad relevant factors, all of which categorically supported petitioner’s release on parole.

2017Petitioner’s additional contentions — that respondents lacked jurisdiction over him by virtue of improper procedures and that he was denied due process of law by the Board’s failure to follow its statutory mandates — were not raised in his administrative appeal, and petitioner therefore has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to them (see Matter of Karlin v Cully, 104 AD3d 1285, 1286 [2013]; Matter of Secore v Mantello, 176 AD2d 1244, 1244 [1991]).

2017Petitioner’s additional contentions — that respondents lacked jurisdiction over him by virtue of improper procedures and that he was denied due process of law by the Board’s failure to follow its statutory mandates — were not raised in his administrative appeal, and petitioner therefore has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to them (see Matter of Karlin v Cully, 104 AD3d 1285, 1286 [2013]; Matter of Secore v Mantello, 176 AD2d 1244, 1244 [1991]).

2016The court directed the prosecutor "to file with the Court a prosecutor's information charging the defendant with such non-felony offense." Thus, the order clearly indicates that the required statutory inquiry was conducted by the Justice Court ( cf. People v Yolles , 92 NY2d 960 [1998]; People v Stinson , 22 Misc 3d 136 [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52662[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2008]; People v Grune , 164 Misc 2d 1047, 1050 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 1995]).

2011However, the Board was entitled to place particular emphasis on the serious nature of petitioner’s crime (see Matter of Abdur-Raheem v New York State Bd. of Parole, 78 AD3d at 1413; Matter of Karlin v New York State Div. of Parole, 77 AD3d 1015, 1015 [2010]).

2011Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Board did not rely solely on the violent nature of the instant crime in denying release, but rather considered the other required statutory factors, including petitioner’s educational accomplishments, institutional and disciplinary records and postrelease plans (see Matter of Abdur-Raheem v New York State Bd. of Parole, 78 AD3d 1412, 1413 [2010]; Matter of McAllister v New York State Div. of Parole, 78 AD3d 1413, 1414 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 707 [2011]).

2011However, the Board was entitled to place particular emphasis on the serious nature of petitioner’s crime (see Matter of Abdur-Raheem v New York State Bd. of Parole, 78 AD3d at 1413; Matter of Karlin v New York State Div. of Parole, 77 AD3d 1015, 1015 [2010]).

2011Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Board did not rely solely on the violent nature of the instant crime in denying release, but rather considered the other required statutory factors, including petitioner’s educational accomplishments, institutional and disciplinary records and postrelease plans (see Matter of Abdur-Raheem v New York State Bd. of Parole, 78 AD3d 1412, 1413 [2010]; Matter of McAllister v New York State Div. of Parole, 78 AD3d 1413, 1414 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 707 [2011]).

2004Diligent efforts is defined by statute as "reasonable attempts by an authorized agency to assist, develop and encourage a meaningful relationship between the parent and child, including but not limited to: (1) consultation and cooperation with the parents in developing a plan for appropriate services to the child and his family; (2) making suitable arrangements for the parents to visit the child.... (3) provision of services and other assistance to the parents * * * so that problems preventing the discharge of the child from care may be resolved or ameliorated; [and] (4) informing the parents