Gonzalez v. Rodriguez

135 A.D.2d 633, 522 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52567
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 14, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 135 A.D.2d 633 (Gonzalez v. Rodriguez) 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
Gonzalez v. Rodriguez, 135 A.D.2d 633, 522 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Board of Parole, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner release on parole, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Coppola, J.), entered January 27, 1987, which dismissed the petition.

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

In the absence of a convincing demonstration to the contrary, it is presumed that the New York State Board of Parole [634]*634acted properly in accordance with statutory requirements (see, People ex rel. Herbert v New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 AD2d 128, 133, appeal withdrawn 62 NY2d 617). Here, the petitioner argues on appeal that the Board of Parole failed to take into consideration his plans if paroled in determining that he should not be paroled. This contention, however, is belied by the record as it is evident that inquiry was made at the hearing regarding the petitioner’s plans if released. The petitioner further argues that the Board should not be permitted to deny him parole based solely on the nature of his criminal acts. The Board, however, was entitled to weigh each of the statutory factors as it saw fit (see, People ex rel. Thomas v Superintendent, 124 AD2d 848, lv denied 69 NY2d 611). Because the petitioner has failed to convincingly show that the Parole Board failed to consider all of the mandatory factors enumerated by statute (see, Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c]), the determination denying him parole is not subject to judicial review (see, Executive Law § 259-i [5]). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Wright v. Travis
284 A.D.2d 544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Bedell
210 A.D.2d 922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
McLain v. New York State Division of Parole
204 A.D.2d 456 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Heath v. New York State Division of Parole
201 A.D.2d 732 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Mackey v. New York State Board of Parole
201 A.D.2d 565 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Desantis v. New York State Board of Parole
152 Misc. 2d 40 (New York Supreme Court, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 A.D.2d 633, 522 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-rodriguez-nyappdiv-1987.