| Matter of Mentor v New York State Div. of Parole |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 06620 [87 AD3d 1245] |
| September 29, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Raymond Mentor, Appellant, v New York StateDivision of Parole et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marlene O. Tuczinski of counsel), forrespondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Devine, J.), entered March 3, 2011 in AlbanyCounty, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, toreview a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parole release.
In 1990, petitioner was convicted of robbery in the second degree and murder in the seconddegree. He was sentenced, respectively, to concurrent prison terms of 2 to 6 years and 15 years tolife. In May 2010, he made his fourth appearance before the Board of Parole seeking to bereleased to parole supervision. At the conclusion of the hearing, his request was denied and hewas ordered held for an additional 24 months. Petitioner filed an administrative appeal and, whenhe did not receive a response within four months, he commenced this CPLR article 78proceeding. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appealensued.
We affirm. The courts will not disturb the Board's discretionary decision to deny parole aslong as the Board has complied with the statutory requirements set forth in Executive Law§ 259-i (see Matter of Santos vEvans, 81 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2011]; Matter of Smith v New York State Div. of Parole, 81 AD3d 1026,1026 [2011]). Here, the record discloses that the statutory requirements were satisfied. Inaddition to the serious nature of the crimes, the Board took into account petitioner's criminalrecord, numerous prison disciplinary violations, positive program [*2]and vocational accomplishments and postrelease plans, as well asthe sentencing minutes (see Matter of Santos v Evans, 81 AD3d at 1060; Matter of McAllister v New York StateDiv. of Parole, 78 AD3d 1413, 1414 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 707 [2011]).Contrary to petitioner's claim, it is clear from the record, including the Board's decision, that theBoard also considered petitioner's receipt of a certificate of limited credit time allowance. Hisreceipt of this certificate, however, does not entitle him to release, as parole is not to be grantedas a reward for good conduct (see e.g.Matter of Gutkaiss v New York State Div. of Parole, 50 AD3d 1418, 1418 [2008]; Matter of Borcsok v New York State Div.of Parole, 34 AD3d 961, 961 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 803 [2007]).Furthermore, while we do not condone the Board's failure to act upon petitioner's administrativeappeal in a timely manner, we do not find that it deprived him of due process (see generally People ex rel. Sanchez vHerbert, 2 AD3d 1352, 1353 [2003]).[FN*]Petitioner's remaining claims have been considered and are unavailing. Given that the Board'sdecision does not exhibit " 'irrationality bordering on impropriety' " (Matter of Silmon vTravis, 95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000], quoting Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. ofParole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]), we will not disturb it.
Peters, J.P., Spain, Kavanagh, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed, without costs.
Footnote *: We are troubled by the Board'spattern of not making timely rulings on administrative appeals in many of the parole cases thathave come before us. We are concerned that this may be a disservice to the individuals seekingadministrative review.