| Matter of Hanson v New York State Bd. of Parole |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 10624 [57 AD3d 994] |
| December 30, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Paul Hanson, Respondent, v New YorkState Board of Parole, Appellant. |
—[*1] Tom Terrizzi, Ithaca, N.Y., for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the ExecutiveDepartment of the New York State Division of Parole, dated December 21, 2007, which affirmeda determination of the Parole Board of the New York State Division of Parole, dated May 11,2007, made after a hearing, denying the petitioner's application to be released on parole anddirecting him to be held for an additional 24 months, the New York State Division of Paroleappeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Alessandro, J.), dated April 28,2008, which granted the petition, annulled the determination, and granted a new hearing.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, thedetermination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.
"A determination by the New York State Division of Parole (hereinafter the Board) madepursuant to Executive Law article 12-B 'shall be deemed a judicial function and shall not bereviewable if done in accordance with law' " (Matter of Nankervis v Dennison, 30 AD3d521, 522 [2006] quoting Executive Law § 259-i [5]). "Absent a 'convincing demonstration'to the contrary, the Board is presumed to have acted properly in accordance with statutoryrequirements, and judicial intervention is warranted only where there is a showing of 'irrationalitybordering on impropriety' " (Matter of Hardwick v Dennison, 43 AD3d [*2]406, 407 [2007], quoting Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95NY2d 470, 476 [2000]).
The petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Board did not comply with the statutoryrequirements and failed to overcome the presumption that the Board reached its decision inaccordance with those requirements (see Matter of Nankervis v Dennison, 30 AD3d at522; Matter of Heitman v New York State Bd. of Parole, 214 AD2d 673 [1995];Matter of McLain v New York State Div. of Parole, 204 AD2d 456, 456 [1994];Matter of Ganci v Hammock, 99 AD2d 546, 547 [1984]). "[The Board] was not requiredto give equal weight to each factor, nor was it required to discuss each of the factors in itsdetermination" (Matter of Mata v Travis, 8 AD3d 570, 570 [2004]; see Matter ofJohnson v Travis, 284 AD2d 686, 687 [2001]).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Miller andCarni, JJ., concur.