Harris v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harris v. New York State Board of Parole

114 A.D.2d 897, 495 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53927

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 12, 1985·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent denying petitioner’s request for release on parole supervision, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (King, J.), entered February 6, 1984, which denied the petition.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The seriousness of the offenses committed by the petitioner constitutes a sufficient justification for the Board’s denial of parole (see, Matter of Bacon v Hammock, 96 AD2d 557; Matter of Shapiro v Hammock, 67 AD2d 713, lv denied 47 NY2d 710; Matter of Consilvio v New York State Bd. of Parole, 57 AD2d 955). A review of the record indicates that the Board acted in accordance with statutory requirements (see, People ex rel. Herbert v New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 AD2d 128, appeal withdrawn 62 NY2d 617), and since there has been no "showing of irrationality bordering on impropriety”, judicial intervention is precluded (Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77; see, Executive Law § 259-i [5]). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent denying petitioner’s request for release on parole supervision, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (King, J.), entered February 6, 1984, which denied the petition.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The seriousness of the offenses committed by the petitioner constitutes a sufficient justification for the Board’s denial of parole (see, Matter of Bacon v Hammock, 96 AD2d 557; Matter of Shapiro v Hammock, 67 AD2d 713, lv denied 47 NY2d 710; Matter of Consilvio v New York State Bd. of Parole, 57 AD2d 955). A review of the record indicates that the Board acted in accordance with statutory requirements (see, People ex rel. Herbert v New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 AD2d 128, appeal withdrawn 62 NY2d 617), and since there has been no "showing of irrationality bordering on impropriety”, judicial intervention is precluded (Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77; see, Executive Law § 259-i [5]). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Harris v. New York State Board of Parole, 114 A.D.2d 897, 495 N.Y.S.2d 654, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

114 A.D.2d 897 (Harris v. New York State Board of Parole) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related