| Matter of Alamo v New York State Div. of Parole |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 05860 [52 AD3d 1163] |
| June 26, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Louis Alamo, Appellant, v New York State Division ofParole, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Zwack, J.), entered December 14, 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.
In 1987, petitioner was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to 20 years to lifein prison. Petitioner made his second appearance before the Board of Parole in August 2006. TheBoard denied his request for parole release and ordered him held for an additional 24 months.Petitioner filed an administrative appeal and then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition. This appeal by petitioner ensued.
We affirm. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the record discloses that the Board did not base itsdecision solely upon the nature of the underlying crime. Rather, in denying petitioner's request for parolerelease, the Board also considered other pertinent statutory factors (see Executive Law§ 259-i), including petitioner's institutional and disciplinary record, lack of a criminal history andpostrelease plans (see Matter of Montalvo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 AD3d 1438[2008]). The Board was not required to give equal weight to each factor and was entitled to, as it did,place greater emphasis on the gravity of the instant offense (see Matter of Gardiner v New YorkState Div. of Parole, 48 AD3d 871, 872 [2008]). Petitioner's remaining [*2]contentions are unavailing. Given the foregoing, we find that the Board'sdecision does not exhibit " 'irrationality bordering on impropriety' " (Matter of Silmon v Travis,95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000], quoting Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50NY2d 69, 77 [1980]) and, as such, we decline to disturb it.
Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Rose, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.