| Matter of MacKenzie v Dennison |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08051 [55 AD3d 1092] |
| October 23, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of John MacKenzie, Appellant, v Robert Dennison, asChair of the New York State Division of Parole, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Stein, J.), entered December 17, 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.
Petitioner was convicted in 1982 of numerous crimes in connection with the fatal shooting of apolice officer during a burglary. He is currently serving a term of 25 years to life in prison. On August15, 2006, he made his fourth appearance before the Board of Parole for parole release. At theconclusion of the hearing, the Board denied his request, noting that his release would deprecate theseriousness of his offense, and ordered him held for an additional 24 months. When petitioner did notreceive a response to his administrative appeal, he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. The Board considered the relevant statutory factors set forth in Executive Law §259-i, including the violent nature of petitioner's crimes, his criminal history, prison disciplinary record,program accomplishments and postrelease plans, in denying his request for parole release (see Matter of Schettino v New York State Div.of Parole, 45 AD3d 1086, 1086[*2][2007]; Matter of Cruz v New York State Div. ofParole, 39 AD3d 1060, 1062 [2007]). The Board was not required to give each factor equalweight and could, as it did, place primary emphasis on the serious nature of petitioner's crimes (see Matter of Gardiner v New York State Div.of Parole, 48 AD3d 871, 872 [2008]; Matter of McCorkle v New York State Div. of Parole, 19 AD3d 791,791-792 [2005]). We reject petitioner's claim that the Board's decision is the product of an informalexecutive policy against granting parole to violent felons (see Matter of Motti v Dennison, 38 AD3d 1030, 1031 [2007]; Matter of Salahuddin v Dennison, 34 AD3d1082, 1083 [2006]). Inasmuch as the Board's decision does not exhibit " 'irrationality bordering onimpropriety' " (Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000], quoting Matter ofRusso v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]), we decline to disturb it.
Cardona, P.J., Spain, Lahtinen, Malone Jr. and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgmentis affirmed, without costs.