McKee v. New York State Board of Parole

157 A.D.2d 944, 550 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 401
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 18, 1990
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 157 A.D.2d 944 (McKee v. New York State Board 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
McKee v. New York State Board of Parole, 157 A.D.2d 944, 550 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

Weiss, J. P.

[945]*945Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hanofee, J.), entered September 27, 1988 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request for parole.

Petitioner, serving concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 4 to 12 years, was denied parole. Respondent determined that petitioner “would not remain at liberty without violating the law” and that his release would be "incompatible with the welfare of society”. Petitioner challenged the determination as being arbitrary and capricious. Supreme Court found that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the decision was irrational or affected by an error of fact or law. On this appeal, petitioner contends that undue emphasis was placed on his prior criminal record and behavior, the offense resulting in the current conviction and his institutional record.

Parole release decisions are discretionary. If made pursuant to statutory requirements, such actions are not reviewable (Executive Law § 259-i [5]; Matter of Davis v New York State Div. of Parole, 114 AD2d 412). Respondent is not required to place a specific weight on any given factor. Absent a convincing demonstration that respondent failed to consider the applicable standards, it must be presumed that respondent properly fulfilled its duty (see, People ex rel. Herbert v New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 AD2d 128, 133). There has been no showing of irrationality (see, Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77), nor any other basis for judicial intervention.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Robles v. Dennison
745 F. Supp. 2d 244 (W.D. New York, 2010)
Scott v. Dennison
739 F. Supp. 2d 342 (W.D. New York, 2010)
Garofolo v. Rosa
26 Misc. 3d 969 (New York Supreme Court, 2009)
Crimmins v. Dennison
12 Misc. 3d 725 (New York Supreme Court, 2006)
Hurdle v. New York State Board of Parole
283 A.D.2d 739 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Waters v. New York State Division of Parole
252 A.D.2d 759 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Walker v. Travis
252 A.D.2d 360 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Garcia v. New York State Division of Parole
239 A.D.2d 235 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People ex rel. Vines v. Executive Department
237 A.D.2d 778 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Moore v. New York State Board of Parole
233 A.D.2d 653 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Quartararo v. Catterson
917 F. Supp. 919 (E.D. New York, 1996)
Walker v. New York State Division of Parole
203 A.D.2d 757 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Klein v. New York State Division of Parole
202 A.D.2d 319 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Israel v. New York State Division of Parole
196 A.D.2d 942 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Augle v. New York State Board of Parole
192 A.D.2d 1031 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Sinopoli v. New York State Board of Parole
189 A.D.2d 960 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Pike v. New York State Division of Parole
188 A.D.2d 602 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Baker v. Russi
188 A.D.2d 771 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Hall v. New York State Executive Department, Division of Parole
188 A.D.2d 791 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Patterson v. New York State Board of Parole
180 A.D.2d 930 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
157 A.D.2d 944, 550 N.Y.S.2d 204, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckee-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-1990.