| Matter of Allis v New York State Div. of Parole |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 09121 [68 AD3d 1309] |
| December 10, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Christopher M. Allis, Appellant, v New York StateDivision of Parole, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered April 1, 2009 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 forparole release.
In 2007, petitioner was convicted of two counts of criminal contempt in the first degree andwas sentenced to concurrent terms of 1 to 4 years in prison. In April 2008, he made his initialappearance before the Board of Parole seeking parole release. At the conclusion of the hearing,his request was denied and he was ordered held an additional 24 months. Petitioner filed anadministrative appeal and, when he did not receive a response within four months, hecommenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court subsequently dismissed thepetition and this appeal ensued.
We affirm. "[I]t is well settled that parole release decisions are discretionary and will beupheld as long as they comply with the statutory requirements of Executive Law § 259-i"(Matter of Veras v New York State Div.of Parole, 56 AD3d 878, 879 [2008]; see Matter of Wise v New York State Div. of Parole, 54 AD3d463, 464 [2008]). Here, the Board complied with the statutory requirements insofar as itconsidered not only the seriousness of petitioner's crimes, but also his history of committingsimilar offenses, his prison disciplinary record and his program accomplishments. Contrary topetitioner's claim, the Board was entitled to place more emphasis [*2]on the serious nature of his crimes and was not required to equallyweigh each factor or to articulate the weight it accorded each factor in making its decision (see Matter of MacKenzie v Dennison,55 AD3d 1092, 1092 [2008]; Matter of Motti v Alexander, 54 AD3d 1114, 1115 [2008]).Inasmuch as the Board's decision does not exhibit " 'irrationality bordering on impropriety' "(Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000], quoting Matter of Russo vNew York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]), we find no reason to disturb it.
Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Kane, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.