| Matter of Patterson v Evans |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03200 [106 AD3d 1456] |
| May 3, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Emmanuel Patterson, Respondent, vAndrea W. Evans, Chairwoman, New York State Division of Parole, et al.,Appellants. |
—[*1] Emmanuel Patterson, petitioner-respondent pro se.
Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County(John L. Michalski, A.J.), entered March 5, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLRarticle 78. The judgment vacated respondents' denial of parole release and remitted for ahearing de novo.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed onthe law without costs and the petition is dismissed.
Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking tovacate the determination of the New York State Division of Parole (Board) denying hisrelease to parole supervision. Respondents appeal from a judgment granting the petitionand directing a de novo hearing before a different panel. We reverse the judgment anddismiss the petition.
"It is well settled that parole release decisions are discretionary and will not bedisturbed so long as the Board complied with the statutory requirements enumerated inExecutive Law § 259-i" (Matter of Gssime v New York State Div. of Parole, 84 AD3d1630, 1631 [2011], lv dismissed 17 NY3d 847 [2011]; see Matter of Johnson v New YorkState Div. of Parole, 65 AD3d 838, 839 [2009]; see generally Matter of Kingv New York State Div. of Parole, 83 NY2d 788, 790-791 [1994]). The Board is "notrequired to give equal weight to each of the statutory factors" but, rather, may "place[ ]greater emphasis on the severity of the crimes than on the other statutory factors" (Matter of MacKenzie v Evans,95 AD3d 1613, 1614 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 815 [2012]; see Matter of Huntley v Evans,77 AD3d 945, 947 [2010]). Where parole is denied, the inmate must be informed inwriting of "the factors and reasons for such denial of parole" (§ 259-i [2] [a] [i])."Judicial intervention is warranted only when there is a 'showing of irrationalitybordering on impropriety' " (Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 476[2000]; see Matter of Johnson vDennison, 48 AD3d 1082, 1083 [2008]; Matter of Gaston v Berbary, 16 AD3d 1158, 1159 [2005]).
Here, we conclude upon our review of the hearing transcript and the Board's written[*2]decision that the Board considered the requiredstatutory factors and adequately set forth its reasons for denying petitioner's applicationfor release (see Matter ofSiao-Pao v Dennison, 11 NY3d 777, 778 [2008], rearg denied 11 NY3d885 [2008]; Matter of Galbreithv New York State Bd. of Parole, 58 AD3d 731, 732 [2009]; Matter of Romer v Dennison,24 AD3d 866, 868 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 706 [2006]). We furtherconclude that the Board's determination does not exhibit " 'irrationality bordering onimpropriety' " (Silmon, 95 NY2d at 476). Present—Scudder, P.J.,Peradotto, Carni, Lindley and Whalen, JJ.