Brew v. New York State Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brew v. New York State Division of Parole

22 A.D.3d 930, 802 N.Y.S.2d 522

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

DecidedOctober 20, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 930 (Brew 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

Brew v. New York State Division of Parole, 22 A.D.3d 930, 802 N.Y.S.2d 522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Board of Parole which revoked petitioner’s parole.

Following his conviction on drug charges in 1980, petitioner was sentenced to three years to life in prison. Thereafter, he was released to parole supervision a number of times but was reincarcerated after various parole violations. On June 16, 2003, after his most recent release on parole, he traveled to Dutchess County without the permission of his parole officer and, while apparently inebriated, assaulted his pregnant girlfriend. As a result, he was charged with violating four conditions of his parole, specifically, assaulting his girlfriend, resisting arrest, using alcohol, and leaving New York City without his parole officer’s permission. After a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) found petitioner guilty of all charges, except for using alcohol, and imposed a delinquent time assessment of 48 months. The ALJ’s determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, resulting in this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. Substantial evidence, consisting of the girlfriend’s testimony regarding petitioner’s conduct on the date in question as well as petitioner’s admission that he traveled to Dutchess County without his parole officer’s authorization, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination at issue (see Matter of Ciccarelli v New York State Div. of Parole, 11 AD3d 843, 844 [2004]). Petitioner’s denial that he physically abused his girlfriend and failed to cooperate with the police presented a credibility issue for the ALJ to resolve (see Matter of [931]*931Poladian v Travis, 8 AD3d 770, 770 [2004]). Upon reviewing the record, we find no merit to petitioner’s claim that the hearing was unfair or that the delinquent time assessment was excessive under the circumstances presented here (see Matter of Krouth v New York State Bd. of Parole, 184 AD2d 1012, 1013 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 758 [1992]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

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

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Board of Parole which revoked petitioner’s parole.

Following his conviction on drug charges in 1980, petitioner was sentenced to three years to life in prison. Thereafter, he was released to parole supervision a number of times but was reincarcerated after various parole violations. On June 16, 2003, after his most recent release on parole, he traveled to Dutchess County without the permission of his parole officer and, while apparently inebriated, assaulted his pregnant girlfriend. As a result, he was charged with violating four conditions of his parole, specifically, assaulting his girlfriend, resisting arrest, using alcohol, and leaving New York City without his parole officer’s permission. After a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ALJ) found petitioner guilty of all charges, except for using alcohol, and imposed a delinquent time assessment of 48 months. The ALJ’s determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, resulting in this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. Substantial evidence, consisting of the girlfriend’s testimony regarding petitioner’s conduct on the date in question as well as petitioner’s admission that he traveled to Dutchess County without his parole officer’s authorization, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination at issue (see Matter of Ciccarelli v New York State Div. of Parole, 11 AD3d 843, 844 [2004]). Petitioner’s denial that he physically abused his girlfriend and failed to cooperate with the police presented a credibility issue for the ALJ to resolve (see Matter of [931]*931Poladian v Travis, 8 AD3d 770, 770 [2004]). Upon reviewing the record, we find no merit to petitioner’s claim that the hearing was unfair or that the delinquent time assessment was excessive under the circumstances presented here (see Matter of Krouth v New York State Bd. of Parole, 184 AD2d 1012, 1013 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 758 [1992]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 930, 802 N.Y.S.2d 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brew-v-new-york-state-division-of-parole-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack