| Matter of Boss v New York State Div. of Parole |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07894 [89 AD3d 1265] |
| November 10, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Bryan Boss, Appellant, v New York State Division ofParole, Respondent. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Arnold of counsel), forrespondent.
Spain, J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Platkin, J.), entered January 11, 2011 inAlbany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78,to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parole release.
Petitioner is currently serving a prison sentence of 2 to 6 years after pleading guilty to attemptedrape in the second degree and attempted sexual abuse in the first degree arising from incidents with a13-year-old girl and a 12-year-old girl. Although his conditional release date was November 20, 2009,petitioner remains incarcerated due to his failure to obtain approval from the Board of Parole as to aproposed residence, a special condition placed on his parole release. Petitioner commenced thisproceeding to challenge the denial and Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Petitioner now appeals.
We affirm. The Board maintains the discretion to impose special conditions that must be satisfiedprior to an inmate's release from prison (see Executive Law § 259-c [2]; § 259-g[2]; 9 NYCRR 8003.2 [l]; 8003.3; Matter ofBreeden v Donnelli, 26 AD3d 660, 660-661 [2006]; Matter of Wright v Travis, 297AD2d 842 [2002]). Here, the condition that petitioner secure an approved residence prior to hisrelease was rational in light of his conviction for sex offenses perpetrated against two young girls and thealleged violation of an order of protection against one [*2]of them(see Matter of Breeden v Donnelli, 26 AD3d at 661; Matter of Billups v New York State Div. of Parole, Chair, 18 AD3d1085, 1085-1086 [2005]). We also reject petitioner's contention that respondent failed in its dutyto assist him with securing acceptable housing (see Executive Law § 259-a [6]). Therecord demonstrates that respondent has maintained contact with several agencies in the county ofpetitioner's conviction in such an effort. Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined andfound to be unpreserved or without merit.
Peters, J.P., McCarthy, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed,without costs.