Matter of Veras v New York State Div. of Parole

2008 NY Slip Op 08393 [56 AD3d 878]

November 6, 2008

Appellate Division, Third Department

As corrected through Wednesday, January 7, 2009

In the Matter of Luis Veras, Appellant, v New York State Divisionof Parole, Respondent.

—[*1]Luis Veras, Otisville, appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Donohue, J.), entered March 12, 2008 inAlbany 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 1988, petitioner was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree, manslaughter inthe first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree after he shot a womanto death and shot at her male companion while petitioner was intoxicated. He was sentenced toan aggregate term of 162/3 to 40 years in prison for these crimes. In February 2007,petitioner made his third appearance before the Board of Parole for parole release. At theconclusion of the hearing, the Board denied his request and ordered him held for an additional 24months. Petitioner's administrative appeal was never decided and he commenced this CPLRarticle 78 proceeding. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Thisappeal ensued.

We affirm. Initially, it is well settled that parole release decisions are discretionary and willbe upheld as long as they comply with the statutory requirements of Executive Law § 259-i(see Matter of De Lagarde v New YorkState Div. of Parole, 23 AD3d 876, 876 [2005]; Matter of Mendez v New York State Bd. of Parole, 20 AD3d 742,743 [2005]). The record here discloses that the Board considered the relevant statutory factors,including the seriousness of petitioner's crimes, his lack of criminal record, his programaccomplishments and his postrelease [*2]plans, in denying hisrequest for parole release. Although the Board did not specifically mention the sentencingminutes that referenced the fact that petitioner experienced blackouts when he was drinking, therecord reveals that the minutes were properly before the Board. We note that the Board was notrequired to give equal weight to or specifically articulate each factor considered in making itsdecision (see Matter of Stasinski vTravis, 18 AD3d 1106, 1107 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 707 [2005]; Matter of Gamez v Dennison, 18 AD3d1099, 1099 [2005]; Matter of De LaCruz v Travis, 10 AD3d 789, 789 [2004]).

Moreover, while the Board's transcribed disposition mistakenly referenced one of petitioner'sconvictions to be for murder in the second degree, its written disposition correctly noted that thesubject conviction was for attempted murder in the second degree. Consequently, the Board'sdecision was not based upon erroneous information requiring annulment (see Matter of Baez v Dennison, 25AD3d 1052, 1053 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 713 [2006]; Matter of Parmes v Travis, 17 AD3d885, 886 [2005]). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to beunavailing. Inasmuch as the Board's decision does not evince " 'irrationality bordering onimpropriety' " (Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000], quoting Matterof Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]), we decline to disturb it.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.