| Matter of Blasich v New York State Bd. of Parole |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01685 [48 AD3d 1029] |
| February 28, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Gerard Blasich, Appellant, v New York StateBoard of Parole, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Marlene O. Tuczinski of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Sackett, J.), entered July 9, 2007 in AlbanyCounty, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, toreview a determination of respondent denying petitioner's request for parole release.
In 1986, following his convictions of murder in the second degree, two counts of criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in theseventh degree and possession of burglar's tools, petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate prisonterm of 15 years to life. In March 2006, petitioner made his fourth appearance before respondentand his request for parole release was denied. After that determination was affirmed uponadministrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Courtdismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.
Contrary to petitioner's contentions, respondent did not rely solely on the seriousness of hiscrimes in denying his request for parole release. A review of the record reveals that, in additionto the seriousness of the crimes, which included a prearranged drug-related robbery that endedwith petitioner killing a man by shooting him in the face and neck, respondent consideredpetitioner's positive institutional programming, his recent tier III prison disciplinary infractionand his familial support for his postrelease plans to reenter the community. In making itsdetermination, respondent appropriately considered the factors set forth in Executive Law§ 259-i, however, it was not required to give each factor equal weight, nor was it requiredto [*2]specifically articulate in its decision each factor itconsidered (see Matter of Reed vDivision of Parole, 41 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2007]; Matter of Cruz v New York State Div. of Parole, 39 AD3d 1060,1062 [2007]). As petitioner has not demonstrated that respondent's determination was affected by"irrationality bordering on impropriety" (Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 476[2000] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Borcsok v New York State Div. of Parole, 34 AD3d961, 961-962 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 803 [2007]), it will not be disturbed.
Petitioner's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.
Cardona, P.J., Peters, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that thejudgment is affirmed, without costs.