Anthony v. New York State Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anthony v. New York State Division of Parole

17 A.D.3d 301, 792 N.Y.S.2d 900, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4480

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

DecidedApril 28, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 301 (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, 17 A.D.3d 301, 792 N.Y.S.2d 900, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4480 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J), entered March 18, 2004, which denied the petition challenging respondent’s denial of his application for release on parole, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner did not demonstrate that respondent failed to consider the factors enumerated in Executive Law § 259-i (2) (c) (A) or afforded any of those factors excessive weight (see Matter of Ramirez v New York State Div. of Parole, 309 AD2d 574 [2003]). Respondent properly took into account the extremely serious nature of petitioner’s crimes (id.), which was not outweighed by his apparently exemplary record of accomplishments while incarcerated (Matter of Garcia v New York State Div. of Parole, 239 AD2d 235, 240 [1997]; People ex rel. Herbert v New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 AD2d 128, 133 [1983]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J), entered March 18, 2004, which denied the petition challenging respondent’s denial of his application for release on parole, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner did not demonstrate that respondent failed to consider the factors enumerated in Executive Law § 259-i (2) (c) (A) or afforded any of those factors excessive weight (see Matter of Ramirez v New York State Div. of Parole, 309 AD2d 574 [2003]). Respondent properly took into account the extremely serious nature of petitioner’s crimes (id.), which was not outweighed by his apparently exemplary record of accomplishments while incarcerated (Matter of Garcia v New York State Div. of Parole, 239 AD2d 235, 240 [1997]; People ex rel. Herbert v New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 AD2d 128, 133 [1983]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 301, 792 N.Y.S.2d 900, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-v-new-york-state-division-of-parole-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack