Anthony v. New York State Division of Parole

252 A.D.2d 704, 679 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8210
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 9, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 252 A.D.2d 704 (Anthony v. New York State Division 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
Anthony v. New York State Division of Parole, 252 A.D.2d 704, 679 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Torraca, J.), entered January 20, 1998 in Ulster County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the State Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

After serving 32 years of his sentence, petitioner, an inmate serving a prison term of 20 years to life as the result of his convictions of three counts of murder in the first degree, made his seventh appearance before the State Board of Parole and again was denied parole. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Board’s determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. “The decisions of the Board of Parole are discretionary, and if made in accordance with the statutory requirements, such determinations are not subject to judicial review” (Matter of Cruz v New York State Dept. of Parole, 212 AD2d 699). In denying petitioner’s request for parole, the Board took into account the extraordinarily serious and heinous nature of petitioner’s crime and considered the length of time already served by petitioner, his numerous accomplishments while in prison and his willingness to accept responsibility for his crimes. The Board having considered the requisite factors, there is no basis upon which to disturb its determination. Accordingly, Supreme Court properly dismissed the instant petition.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Carpinello and Graffeo, 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

Related

Garofolo v. Rosa
26 Misc. 3d 969 (New York Supreme Court, 2009)
Hakim v. Travis
302 A.D.2d 821 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Bridget v. Travis
300 A.D.2d 776 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Ramahlo v. Travis
290 A.D.2d 911 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Llull v. Travis
287 A.D.2d 845 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Hickson v. Travis
276 A.D.2d 959 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Thomas v. New York State Division of Parole
276 A.D.2d 990 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Strickland v. New York State Division of Parole
275 A.D.2d 830 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Moore v. New York State Board of Parole
274 A.D.2d 886 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Fitzpatrick v. Travis
274 A.D.2d 718 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Nelson v. New York State Parole Board
274 A.D.2d 719 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Rhoden v. New York State Division of Parole
270 A.D.2d 550 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
McGovern v. Travis
268 A.D.2d 924 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Huber v. Travis
264 A.D.2d 887 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Phillips v. Travis
262 A.D.2d 889 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Marcelin v. Travis
262 A.D.2d 836 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Faison v. Travis
260 A.D.2d 866 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
252 A.D.2d 704, 679 N.Y.S.2d 158, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-v-new-york-state-division-of-parole-nyappdiv-1998.