Matter of Holmes v. Annucci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Holmes v. Annucci

2017 NY Slip Op 5372, 151 A.D.3d 1954, 57 N.Y.S.3d 857

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

DecidedJune 30, 2017

Docket906 CA 16-00935

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5372 (Matter of Holmes v. Annucci) 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

Matter of Holmes v. Annucci, 2017 NY Slip Op 5372, 151 A.D.3d 1954, 57 N.Y.S.3d 857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Michael M. Mohun, A.J.), entered May 6, 2016 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the determination of the Parole Board (Board) denying him parole release. “It is well settled that parole release decisions are discretionary and will not be disturbed so long as the Board complied with the statutory requirements enumerated in Executive Law § 259-i” (Matter of Gssime v New York State Div. of Parole, 84 AD3d 1630, 1631 [2011], lv dismissed 17 NY3d 847 [2011]; see Matter of Johnson v New York State Div. of Parole, 65 AD3d 838, 839 [2009]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, we conclude that the Board did not rely on incorrect information in making its determination, specifically that petitioner had not completed the alcohol and substance abuse program (ASAT). Petitioner admitted that ASAT had been recommended to him, and his statement that his counselor did not think he needed ASAT because he had already taken it previously does not make that information erroneous. We reject petitioner’s further contentions that the Board looked exclusively to past-focused factors and failed to consider all of the factors in a fair manner. The record establishes that the Board appropriately considered the relevant factors in denying petitioner’s application for release, including, inter alia, the underlying offense, petitioner’s criminal history and prior violations of parole, his institutional adjustment, and his plans upon release (see Matter of Kenefick v Sticht, 139 AD3d 1380, 1381 [2016], lv denied *1955 28 NY3d 902 [2016]).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Carni, Lindley, Curran and Scudder, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Michael M. Mohun, A.J.), entered May 6, 2016 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the determination of the Parole Board (Board) denying him parole release. “It is well settled that parole release decisions are discretionary and will not be disturbed so long as the Board complied with the statutory requirements enumerated in Executive Law § 259-i” (Matter of Gssime v New York State Div. of Parole, 84 AD3d 1630, 1631 [2011], lv dismissed 17 NY3d 847 [2011]; see Matter of Johnson v New York State Div. of Parole, 65 AD3d 838, 839 [2009]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, we conclude that the Board did not rely on incorrect information in making its determination, specifically that petitioner had not completed the alcohol and substance abuse program (ASAT). Petitioner admitted that ASAT had been recommended to him, and his statement that his counselor did not think he needed ASAT because he had already taken it previously does not make that information erroneous. We reject petitioner’s further contentions that the Board looked exclusively to past-focused factors and failed to consider all of the factors in a fair manner. The record establishes that the Board appropriately considered the relevant factors in denying petitioner’s application for release, including, inter alia, the underlying offense, petitioner’s criminal history and prior violations of parole, his institutional adjustment, and his plans upon release (see Matter of Kenefick v Sticht, 139 AD3d 1380, 1381 [2016], lv denied *1955 28 NY3d 902 [2016]).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Carni, Lindley, Curran and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 5372, 151 A.D.3d 1954, 57 N.Y.S.3d 857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-holmes-v-annucci-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack