| Matter of Malone v Evans |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02886 [83 AD3d 719] |
| April 5, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Mark Malone, Respondent, v AndreaEvans, Appellant. |
—[*1] Mark Malone, Beacon, N.Y., respondent pro se.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York StateDivision of Parole dated March 19, 2009, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner'sapplication to be released to parole, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, OrangeCounty (Alfieri, J.), dated March 16, 2010, which granted the petition, annulled thedetermination, and remitted the matter to the New York State Division of Parole for a newhearing.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The New York State Division of Parole (hereinafter the Parole Board) is required to considera number of statutory factors in determining whether an inmate should be released to parole(see Executive Law § 259-i; Matter of Huntley v Evans, 77 AD3d 945, 947 [2010]; Matter of Miller v New York State Div. ofParole, 72 AD3d 690, 691 [2010]). Although the Parole Board need not expresslydiscuss each of these factors in its determination, it is required to inform the inmate in writing ofthe factors and reasons for the denial of parole, and "[s]uch reasons shall be given in detail andnot in conclusory terms" (Executive Law § 259-i [2] [a]; see Matter of Mitchell v New York StateDiv. of Parole, 58 AD3d 742, 743 [2009]). Here, the Parole Board's written decisionindicated that its determination denying the petitioner's application for parole was based on theseriousness of the underlying offenses. "While the seriousness of the underlying offense remainsacutely relevant in determining whether the petitioner should be released on parole, the recordsupports the petitioner's contention that the Parole Board failed to take other relevant statutoryfactors into account" (Matter of Mitchell v New York State Div. of Parole, 58 AD3d at743; see Matter of Johnson v New YorkState Div. of Parole, 65 AD3d 838, 839 [2009]; Matter of Wallman v Travis, 18 AD3d 304, 307-308 [2005]).Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition, annulled the determination, andremitted the matter to the Parole Board for a new hearing. Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Balkin andRoman, JJ., concur.