Matter of Marszalek v. Stanford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Marszalek v. Stanford

124 A.D.3d 665, 997 N.Y.S.2d 910

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 2015

Docket2014-03430

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 124 A.D.3d 665 (Matter of Marszalek v. Stanford) 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 Marszalek v. Stanford, 124 A.D.3d 665, 997 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Parole dated May 22, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s request to be released on parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bartlett, J.), dated January 16, 2014, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

Judicial review of the determinations of the New York State Division of Parole (hereinafter the Parole Board) is narrowly circumscribed (see Matter of Briguglio v New York State Bd. of Parole, 24 NY2d 21, 29 [1969]; Matter of Hardwick v Dennison, 43 AD3d 406, 407 [2007]; Matter of Rhoden v New York State Div. of Parole, 270 AD2d 550, 551 [2000]). Moreover, while the Parole Board is required to consider the relevant statutory factors (see Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c]) in reaching its determination, it is not required to address each factor in its decision or accord all of the factors equal weight (see Matter of Thomches v Evans, 108 AD3d 724 [2013]; Matter of Samuel v Alexander, 69 AD3d 861, 862 [2010]; Matter of Comfort v New York State Div. of Parole, 68 AD3d 1295, 1296 [2009]; Matter of Ward v New York State Div. of Parole, 26 AD3d 712, 713 [2006]). In this case, the hearing record and the text of the respondent’s determination establish that the requisite factors were properly considered.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Since the petitioner failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating that the challenged determination was irrational, the Supreme Court correctly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding (see Matter of Thomches v Evans, 108 AD3d at 724-725; Matter of Samuel v Alexander, 69 AD3d at 862; Matter of *666 Hardwick v Dennison, 43 AD3d at 407).

Eng, P.J., Mastro, Roman and Miller, 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 dated May 22, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s request to be released on parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bartlett, J.), dated January 16, 2014, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

Judicial review of the determinations of the New York State Division of Parole (hereinafter the Parole Board) is narrowly circumscribed (see Matter of Briguglio v New York State Bd. of Parole, 24 NY2d 21, 29 [1969]; Matter of Hardwick v Dennison, 43 AD3d 406, 407 [2007]; Matter of Rhoden v New York State Div. of Parole, 270 AD2d 550, 551 [2000]). Moreover, while the Parole Board is required to consider the relevant statutory factors (see Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c]) in reaching its determination, it is not required to address each factor in its decision or accord all of the factors equal weight (see Matter of Thomches v Evans, 108 AD3d 724 [2013]; Matter of Samuel v Alexander, 69 AD3d 861, 862 [2010]; Matter of Comfort v New York State Div. of Parole, 68 AD3d 1295, 1296 [2009]; Matter of Ward v New York State Div. of Parole, 26 AD3d 712, 713 [2006]). In this case, the hearing record and the text of the respondent’s determination establish that the requisite factors were properly considered.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Since the petitioner failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating that the challenged determination was irrational, the Supreme Court correctly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding (see Matter of Thomches v Evans, 108 AD3d at 724-725; Matter of Samuel v Alexander, 69 AD3d at 862; Matter of *666 Hardwick v Dennison, 43 AD3d at 407).

Eng, P.J., Mastro, Roman and Miller, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 665, 997 N.Y.S.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-marszalek-v-stanford-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack