Almeyda v. New York State Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Almeyda v. New York State Division of Parole

269 A.D.2d 393, 702 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1248

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 7, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Board of Parole, dated April 15, 1998, which denied his request to be released on parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Murphy, J.), dated March 10, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The respondent acted in accordance with statutory requirements. Accordingly, the discretionary denial of parole is not subject to judicial review (see, Executive Law § 259-i [5]; Matter of Bouknight v Russi, 242 AD2d 329; Matter of Heitman v New York State Bd. of Parole, 214 AD2d 673; Matter of Hall v New York State Executive Dept., Div. of Parole, 188 AD2d 791). The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Board of Parole, dated April 15, 1998, which denied his request to be released on parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Murphy, J.), dated March 10, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The respondent acted in accordance with statutory requirements. Accordingly, the discretionary denial of parole is not subject to judicial review (see, Executive Law § 259-i [5]; Matter of Bouknight v Russi, 242 AD2d 329; Matter of Heitman v New York State Bd. of Parole, 214 AD2d 673; Matter of Hall v New York State Executive Dept., Div. of Parole, 188 AD2d 791). The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

Almeyda v. New York State Division of Parole, 269 A.D.2d 393, 702 N.Y.S.2d 871, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1248 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

269 A.D.2d 393 (Almeyda v. New York State Division of Parole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related