Adelman v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Adelman v. New York State Board of Parole

231 A.D.2d 791, 647 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9185

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 12, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 791 (Adelman v. New York State Board of Parole) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adelman v. New York State Board of Parole, 231 A.D.2d 791, 647 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9185 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Torraca, J.), entered June 26, 1995 in Albany 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.

Petitioner, an inmate serving a lengthy prison sentence for his conviction of the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree, attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, assault in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondent’s denial of his request for parole. Petitioner asserts that because he was never convicted of a sexual offense, respondent improperly considered his failure to acknowledge his sexual misconduct or to enroll in and complete sexual offender’s treatment in making its determination.

Notwithstanding the fact that petitioner was never convicted [792]*792of a separate sexual offense, the record reveals that petitioner engaged in sexual misconduct in connection with the robbery charge and pleaded guilty to this charge in satisfaction of other sexually related crimes. Accordingly, we find that petitioner’s sexual misconduct was an appropriate factor for respondent to consider. Furthermore, the other factors considered by respondent, including petitioner’s assaultive past criminal history, his commission of numerous crimes while on parole and his poor institutional record, provided an ample basis for the denial of his request for parole (see, Matter of Hall v New York State Executive Dept., Div. of Parole, 188 AD2d 791). Therefore, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition and upheld respondent’s determination.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Torraca, J.), entered June 26, 1995 in Albany 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.

Petitioner, an inmate serving a lengthy prison sentence for his conviction of the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree, attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, assault in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondent’s denial of his request for parole. Petitioner asserts that because he was never convicted of a sexual offense, respondent improperly considered his failure to acknowledge his sexual misconduct or to enroll in and complete sexual offender’s treatment in making its determination.

Notwithstanding the fact that petitioner was never convicted [792]*792of a separate sexual offense, the record reveals that petitioner engaged in sexual misconduct in connection with the robbery charge and pleaded guilty to this charge in satisfaction of other sexually related crimes. Accordingly, we find that petitioner’s sexual misconduct was an appropriate factor for respondent to consider. Furthermore, the other factors considered by respondent, including petitioner’s assaultive past criminal history, his commission of numerous crimes while on parole and his poor institutional record, provided an ample basis for the denial of his request for parole (see, Matter of Hall v New York State Executive Dept., Div. of Parole, 188 AD2d 791). Therefore, Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition and upheld respondent’s determination.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 791, 647 N.Y.S.2d 579, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adelman-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack