Herouard v. Travis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Herouard v. Travis

273 A.D.2d 236, 709 N.Y.S.2d 449, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6243

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 5, 2000·Published

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Parole denying him parole release, the [237]*237petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated March 22, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

The Parole Board’s discretionary determination not to release a petitioner will not be subject to judicial review unless there is “a showing of irrationality bordering on impropriety” (Matter of Ristau v Hammock, 103 AD2d 944, 945; see also, Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77; Executive Law § 259-i [5]). In considering the petitioner’s poor adjustment to his previous felony probation (see, Executive Law § 259-i [1] [a]), during the course of which he committed 23 violent crimes, the Parole Board did not abuse its discretion in considering the exacerbating circumstances underlying the crime to which the petitioner pleaded guilty (see, e.g., People ex rel. Herbert v New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 AD2d 128).

The petitioner’s second parole hearing was not untimely (see, Executive Law § 259-i [2] [a]). Sullivan, J. P., Florio, Luciano and Feuerstein, 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 New York State Division of Parole denying him parole release, the [237]*237petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated March 22, 1999, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

The Parole Board’s discretionary determination not to release a petitioner will not be subject to judicial review unless there is “a showing of irrationality bordering on impropriety” (Matter of Ristau v Hammock, 103 AD2d 944, 945; see also, Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77; Executive Law § 259-i [5]). In considering the petitioner’s poor adjustment to his previous felony probation (see, Executive Law § 259-i [1] [a]), during the course of which he committed 23 violent crimes, the Parole Board did not abuse its discretion in considering the exacerbating circumstances underlying the crime to which the petitioner pleaded guilty (see, e.g., People ex rel. Herbert v New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 AD2d 128).

The petitioner’s second parole hearing was not untimely (see, Executive Law § 259-i [2] [a]). Sullivan, J. P., Florio, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Herouard v. Travis, 273 A.D.2d 236, 709 N.Y.S.2d 449, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6243 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

273 A.D.2d 236 (Herouard v. Travis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related