| Matter of Wise v New York State Div. of Parole |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 06525 [54 AD3d 463] |
| August 7, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Anthony F. Wise, Appellant, v New York StateDivision of Parole, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Julie S. Mereson of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered January 4, 2008 inFranklin County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLRarticle 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parolerelease.
In 1978, petitioner was convicted of two counts of murder in the second degree, robbery inthe first degree and burglary in the first degree after he and two companions ransacked the homeof three elderly women and assaulted them, resulting in the death of one of the women. He wasthereafter sentenced to an aggregate term of 25 years to life in prison. In December 2006, hemade his third appearance before the Board of Parole requesting parole release. The Boarddenied his request and directed him to reappear in December 2008. Petitioner appealed, butcommenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding when a timely determination was not made on hisadministrative appeal. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition and thisappeal ensued.
It is well settled that parole release decisions are discretionary and will not be disturbed ifthey comply with the statutory requirements set forth in Executive Law § 259-i (see Matter of Turner v Dennison, 24AD3d 1074, 1074 [2005]; Matter ofDe Lagarde v New York State Div. of Parole, 23 AD3d 876, 876 [2005]). The recordhere discloses that the Board considered the [*2]appropriatestatutory factors including not only the serious nature of the crimes, but also petitioner's criminalhistory, prison disciplinary record, program accomplishments and postrelease plans (see Matter of Marsh v New York State Div.of Parole, 31 AD3d 898 [2006]; Matter of Turner v Dennison, 24 AD3d at1074-1075). Although the Board placed great emphasis on the violent nature of the crimes andpetitioner's criminal history, it was not required to discuss or give equal weight to each statutoryfactor (see Matter of Giles vDennison, 31 AD3d 920, 920-921 [2006]). Inasmuch as we do not find that the Board'sdecision evinces " '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]), we decline to disturb it. We have considered petitioner's remainingcontentions and find them to be unavailing.
Spain, J.P., Carpinello, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that thejudgment is affirmed, without costs. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 34356(U).]