| Matter of Wright v Alexander |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01869 [71 AD3d 1270] |
| March 11, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Arthur Wright, Appellant, v George Alexander, asChair of the New York State Division of Parole, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Sackett, J.), entered August 18, 2009 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 forparole release.
Petitioner was convicted in 1989 of assault in the second degree and was sentenced as apersistent violent felony offender to six years to life in prison. In 2004, he was released to parolesupervision. He was subsequently convicted of additional criminal offenses and, as a result, hisparole was revoked and a 12-month delinquent time assessment was imposed. In April 2008,petitioner appeared before the Board of Parole seeking to be released on parole. Following ahearing, the Board denied his request and ordered him held an additional 24 months. Whenpetitioner did not receive a response to his administrative appeal within four months, hecommenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court dismissed the petition andpetitioner appeals.
Parole release decisions are discretionary and will not be disturbed so long as the statutoryrequirements of Executive Law § 259-i are satisfied (see Matter of Veras v New York State Div. of Parole, 56 AD3d878, 879 [2008]; Matter of Wise vNew York State Div. of Parole, 54 AD3d 463, 464 [2008]). Notably, the Board need notarticulate every statutory factor [*2]considered in making itsdecision nor give each factor equal weight (see Matter of Brower v Alexander, 57 AD3d 1060, 1060-1061[2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 707 [2009]; Matter of Veras v New York State Div. ofParole, 56 AD3d at 879). Here, the record discloses that in denying petitioner's request forparole release, the Board took into account the nature of petitioner's crime, the fact that it wascommitted while he was on parole, his extensive criminal record, his recent prison disciplinaryinfraction, his certificate of earned eligibility and his postrelease plans (see Matter of Turner v Dennison, 24AD3d 1074, 1074-1075 [2005]). Inasmuch as the Board considered the appropriate factorsand its decision does not exhibit "irrationality bordering on impropriety" (Matter of Russo vNew York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]; accord Matter of Silmon vTravis, 95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000]), we find no reason to disturb it. Furthermore, under thecircumstances presented here, we find no merit to petitioner's claim that the Board's impositionof a 24-month hold was excessive (seeMatter of Smith v New York State Div. of Parole, 64 AD3d 1030, 1031 [2009]; Matter of Ariola v New York State Div. ofParole, 62 AD3d 1228, 1229 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 707 [2009]) .
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.