Matter of Karlin v Alexander

2008 NY Slip Op 09691 [57 AD3d 1156]

December 11, 2008

Appellate Division, Third Department

As corrected through Wednesday, February 11, 2009

mIn the Matter of Daniel Karlin, Appellant, v George Alexander, as Chairof the Division of Parole, Respondent.

—[*1]Daniel Karlin, Malone, appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Martin A. Hotvet of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Zwack, J.), entered June 18, 2008 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 1993, petitioner was convicted of multiple counts of sodomy and sexual abuse in Yates Countyas the result of his molestation of several young boys while he worked as a camp counselor. He wassentenced to an aggregate term of 16 to 48 years in prison, which was subsequently reduced on appealto 12 to 36 years (People v Karlin, 242 AD2d 941, 942 [1997], lv denied 92 NY2d854 [1998]). In 1994, petitioner was convicted in Monroe County of sodomy in the first degree andwas sentenced to 81/3 to 25 years in prison, to run concurrently with his 1993 sentences.In July 2007, petitioner made his second appearance before the Board of Parole seeking parolerelease. The Board denied his request and ordered him held for an additional 24 months. Whenpetitioner did not receive a response to his administrative appeal, he commenced this CPLR article 78proceeding. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. The record discloses that the Board considered the relevant factors set forth inExecutive Law § 259-i in making its decision, including not only the seriousness of petitioner'scrimes, but also his criminal history, prison disciplinary record, program accomplishments and [*2]postrelease plans (see Matter of Motti v Alexander, 54 AD3d 1114, 1115 [2008]; Matter of Grigger v Goord, 41 AD3d1128, 1129 [2007], lv dismissed 9 NY3d 985 [2007]). The Board was not required togive each of the factors equal weight and could, as it did, place greater emphasis on the disturbingnature of the crimes at issue (see Matter ofAlamo v New York State Div. of Parole, 52 AD3d 1163, 1163-1164 [2008]). While theBoard did not expressly discuss the sentencing minutes, the record reveals that they were properlybefore it (see Matter of Johnson vDennison, 48 AD3d 1082, 1083 [2008]). Likewise, there is nothing to suggest that theBoard's decision was the product of an executive policy to deny parole to violent felons (see Matter of Garofolo v Dennison, 53AD3d 734, 735 [2008]). In sum, given that the Board's decision does not exhibit " 'irrationalitybordering on impropriety' " (Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000], quotingMatter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]), we find noreason to disturb it. We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to beunavailing.

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