| Matter of Watson v New York State Bd. of Parole |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08049 [78 AD3d 1367] |
| November 10, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Fred Watson, Appellant, v New York State Board ofParole, Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Frank K. Walsh of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Gilpatric, J.), entered February 23, 2010 inAlbany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78,to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner's request for parole release.
Petitioner was convicted in 1976 of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degreewhen, in the course of robbing a liquor store, he shot the owner to death. In 1978, petitioner was againconvicted of murder in the first degree for the contract killing of his codefendant's wife, whom hestabbed to death. As a result, petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate term of 25 years to life inprison. In December 2008, petitioner made his fifth appearance before respondent for parole release.At the conclusion of the hearing, respondent denied his request and ordered him held for an additional24 months. When a decision on his administrative appeal was not rendered within four months,petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court dismissed the petition andpetitioner now appeals.
We affirm. Although petitioner contends that respondent failed to apply the statutory factors setforth in Executive Law § 259-i, the record demonstrates that respondent properly considerednot only the serious nature of petitioner's crimes, but also his prison disciplinary record, programaccomplishments and postrelease plans (seeMatter of Nicoletta v New York State Div. of Parole, 74 AD3d 1609, 1609 [2010], lvdimissed 15 NY3d 867 [2010]; Matterof Gonzalez v Chair, N.Y. State Bd. of Parole, 72 AD3d 1368, 1369 [2010]). Because equalweight need not be accorded to each factor, respondent did not err by placing particular emphasis onthe [*2]serious nature of petitioner's crimes (see Matter of Gonzalezv Chair, N.Y. State Bd. of Parole, 72 AD3d at 1369; Matter of Williams v Alexander, 71 AD3d 1264, 1265 [2010]). Assuch, respondent's decision does not exhibit " 'irrationality bordering on impropriety' " and, therefore,we find no reason to disturb it (Matter of Nicoletta v New York State Div. of Parole, 74AD3d at 1610, quoting Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77[1980]).
We have considered petitioner's remaining claims, including that he was deprived of due process,and find them to be without merit.
Peters, J.P., Spain, Rose, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed,without costs.