| Matter of Serrano v Dennison |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09657 [46 AD3d 1002] |
| December 6, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Fernando Serrano, Appellant, v Robert Dennison,as Chair of the New York State Board of Parole, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Sackett, J.), entered May 18, 2007 in AlbanyCounty, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, toreview a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parole release.
Following the 1987 stabbing death of his wife, petitioner was convicted of murder in thesecond degree and was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. In May 2006, he made his fourthappearance before the Board of Parole for parole release. The Board denied his request andordered him held for an additional 24 months. Petitioner filed an administrative appeal and thenhe commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Courtdismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. Contrary to petitioner's claim, the Board did not rely solely upon the seriousnessof the crime in denying his request for parole release. The record discloses that, in addition tothis, the Board also considered petitioner's minimal criminal history, clean disciplinary record,program accomplishments and postrelease plans, thereby satisfying the requirements ofExecutive Law § 259-i (seeMatter of Davis v New York State Bd. of Parole, 35 AD3d 1112, 1113 [2006]; Matter of Islam v Dennison, 33 AD3d1147, 1148 [2006], lv denied 9 NY3d 802 [2007]). Significantly, the Board was notrequired to give each of the statutory factors [*2]equal weight (see Matter of Motti v Dennison, 38AD3d 1030, 1031 [2007]). Petitioner's assertion that the Board failed to take into accountthe recommendations of the sentencing court is also not supported by the record. The transcriptof the hearing reveals that the Board had the sentencing minutes before it and reviewed them incompliance with the statutory requirements (compare Matter of Lovell v New York State Div. of Parole, 40 AD3d1166, 1167 [2007]). In sum, inasmuch as the Board's decision does not exhibit " 'irrationalitybordering on impropriety' " (Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000],quoting Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]), wefind no reason to disturb it.
Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgmentis affirmed, without costs.