| Matter of Martin v New York State Div. of Parole |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00404 [47 AD3d 1152] |
| January 24, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Ricky Martin, Appellant, v New York StateDivision of Parole, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Justin R. Long of counsel), forrespondent.
Malone, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered April 10,2007 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant toCPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying his request for parolerelease.
In 1982, following a jury trial, petitioner was convicted of multiple crimes, including twocounts of murder in the second degree (People v Martin, 108 AD2d 928 [1985]) and wassentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life on these counts. In February 2006, petitioner madehis first appearance before the Board of Parole, which denied his request for parole release andordered him to reappear in February 2008. Petitioner subsequently commenced this CPLR article78 proceeding challenging the Board's determination. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Courtdismissed the petition, resulting in this appeal.
Initially, petitioner contends that the Board failed to consider the proper criteria in reachingits decision and that its decision did not sufficiently detail its reasons for denying him parolerelease. We disagree. The criteria to be considered by the Board when making a discretionaryparole release determination are set forth in Executive Law § 259-i (2) (c). However, inmaking its determination, the Board need not give equal weight to each statutory factor nor is itrequired to specifically articulate each factor considered (see Matter of Ward v New York State Div. of Parole, 26 AD3d712, 713 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 702 [2006]; Matter [*2]of Wan Zhang v Travis, 10AD3d 828, 829 [2004]). Upon reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the Boardconsidered the relevant statutory factors, including petitioner's institutional record, hispostrelease plans, the seriousness of his crimes and his prior criminal record, in denying hisrequest for parole release (see Matter ofSilvero v Dennison, 28 AD3d 859, 859-860 [2006]; Matter of Wan Zhang vTravis, 10 AD3d at 829). We further find that the Board adequately set forth the factors andreasons for its denial in its decision. Additionally, contrary to petitioner's assertion, the Boardwas entitled to consider the otherwise confidential information regarding petitioner's prioryouthful offender adjudications in arriving at its parole determination (see CPL 720.35[2]). Inasmuch as there was no " 'showing of irrationality bordering on impropriety' " (Matterof Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000], quoting Matter of Russo v New YorkState Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]); we decline to disturb the Board's decision.
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed,without costs.