Henricks v. New York State Division of Parole

253 A.D.2d 965, 678 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9510
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 17, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 965 (Henricks 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
Henricks v. New York State Division of Parole, 253 A.D.2d 965, 678 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9510 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered January 9, 1998 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the State Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Supreme Court properly dismissed petitioner’s application to review a determination denying his request for parole inasmuch as a determination made by the State Board of Parole is not subject to judicial review when made in accordance with the law (see, Executive Law § 259-i [5]; Matter of Anthony v New York State Div. of Parole, 252 AD2d 705). Although petitioner received a certificate of earned eligibility, the Parole Board made the specific finding that there was a reasonable probability that petitioner could not remain at liberty without violating the law and that his release was not compatible with the welfare of society (see, Correction Law § 805; Matter of Nieves v New York State Div. of Parole, 251 AD2d 836). Accordingly, the Parole Board’s finding, which was based upon petitioner’s refusal to accept responsibility for his crime of attempted rape in the first degree and to participate in any sex-offender therapy programs, was made in accordance with the law and is affirmed.

Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his argument that he was improperly denied access to certain confidential reports considered by the Parole Board (see, 9 NYCRR 8000.5 [c] [2]), have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

[966]*966Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Carpinello, 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

Related

Huber v. Travis
264 A.D.2d 887 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
253 A.D.2d 965, 678 N.Y.S.2d 313, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henricks-v-new-york-state-division-of-parole-nyappdiv-1998.