Gonzalez v. Travis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gonzalez v. Travis

275 A.D.2d 827, 713 N.Y.S.2d 299, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9212

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

DecidedSeptember 14, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 827 (Gonzalez v. Travis) 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. Travis, 275 A.D.2d 827, 713 N.Y.S.2d 299, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9212 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered March 10, 2000 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Petitioner is currently serving two concurrent prison sentences of 4V2 to 9 years for criminal sale and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. On April 27, 1999, petitioner appeared before the Board of Parole for his initial parole release interview. Petitioner was subsequently denied parole and ultimately commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal followed.

We affirm. The record discloses that the Board considered all relevant statutory factors in denying petitioner’s parole request, including both the serious nature of his convictions as well as such positive factors as his improved institutional record and future employment plans. Given this circumstance and the fact that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the determination was affected by irrationality bordering on impropriety, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s discretionary decision that parole release would not be appropriate at this time (see, Matter of Faison v Travis, 260 AD2d 866, 867, appeal dismissed 93 NY2d 1013; see also, Executive Law § 259-i [5]; Matter of Fitzpatrick v Travis, 274 AD2d 718). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be unpersuasive under the circumstances.

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Spain, Graffeo and Mugglin, 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

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered March 10, 2000 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Petitioner is currently serving two concurrent prison sentences of 4V2 to 9 years for criminal sale and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. On April 27, 1999, petitioner appeared before the Board of Parole for his initial parole release interview. Petitioner was subsequently denied parole and ultimately commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal followed.

We affirm. The record discloses that the Board considered all relevant statutory factors in denying petitioner’s parole request, including both the serious nature of his convictions as well as such positive factors as his improved institutional record and future employment plans. Given this circumstance and the fact that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the determination was affected by irrationality bordering on impropriety, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s discretionary decision that parole release would not be appropriate at this time (see, Matter of Faison v Travis, 260 AD2d 866, 867, appeal dismissed 93 NY2d 1013; see also, Executive Law § 259-i [5]; Matter of Fitzpatrick v Travis, 274 AD2d 718). We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be unpersuasive under the circumstances.

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Spain, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 827, 713 N.Y.S.2d 299, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-travis-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack