Costello v. New York State Board of Parole

New York Court of Appeals

Costello v. New York State Board of Parole

18 N.E.3d 739, 23 N.Y.3d 1002

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 26, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 18 N.E.3d 739 (Costello v. New York State Board of Parole) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Costello v. New York State Board of Parole, 18 N.E.3d 739, 23 N.Y.3d 1002 (N.Y. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the challenged determination annulled, and petitioner’s parole reinstated.

The Executive Law requires the Board of Parole (the Board) to consider any victim impact statement in the decision to grant or deny parole release to an inmate (see Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A]). Nonetheless, while it is undisputed that rescission proceedings were properly initiated here, under the particular circumstances of this case, the Board improperly rescinded petitioner’s parole release, which should be reinstated.

Our resolution of this case should not be interpreted as minimizing either the importance of victim impact statements in parole board hearings generally or the powerfully presented evidence of the grief and loss experienced by the family of the victim in this case. On the contrary, we hope that our decision will impel both parole boards and district attorneys to comply fully with the letter and spirit of Executive Law § 259-i (2) (c) (A) (v) and CPL 440.50 (1), so that the effect of a crime on the victim and his or her family can be considered fully before a decision is made.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.

Order reversed, with costs, the challenged determination annulled and petitioner’s parole reinstated, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the challenged determination annulled, and petitioner’s parole reinstated.

The Executive Law requires the Board of Parole (the Board) to consider any victim impact statement in the decision to grant or deny parole release to an inmate (see Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A]). Nonetheless, while it is undisputed that rescission proceedings were properly initiated here, under the particular circumstances of this case, the Board improperly rescinded petitioner’s parole release, which should be reinstated.

Our resolution of this case should not be interpreted as minimizing either the importance of victim impact statements in parole board hearings generally or the powerfully presented evidence of the grief and loss experienced by the family of the victim in this case. On the contrary, we hope that our decision will impel both parole boards and district attorneys to comply fully with the letter and spirit of Executive Law § 259-i (2) (c) (A) (v) and CPL 440.50 (1), so that the effect of a crime on the victim and his or her family can be considered fully before a decision is made.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.

Order reversed, with costs, the challenged determination annulled and petitioner’s parole reinstated, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 N.E.3d 739, 23 N.Y.3d 1002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/costello-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-ny-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack