Murchison v. New York State Division of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murchison v. New York State Division of Parole

91 A.D.3d 1005, 935 N.Y.2d 741

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 1005 (Murchison 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

Murchison v. New York State Division of Parole, 91 A.D.3d 1005, 935 N.Y.2d 741 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

“The Executive Law does not place an outer limit on the length of [the time] assessment, and the Board’s determination may not be modified upon judicial review ‘in the absence of impropriety’ ” (Matter of Bell v Lemons, 78 AD3d 1393, 1393-1394 [2010], quoting People ex rel. Grimmick v McGreevy, 141 AD2d 989, 990 [1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 702 [1988]). Under the circumstances presented here, we cannot conclude that the Board engaged in impropriety. Petitioner’s criminal record reveals that he committed brutal sexual assaults against two young women, ages 13 and 17, using force. Moreover, he was prohibited from having contact with persons under 18 years of age as a condition of his parole, but admittedly did so by being [1006]*1006in the presence of his girlfriend’s two minor children who he brought along with his girlfriend to the parole office without authorization. In view of the foregoing, we do not find that the time assessment was excessive (see Matter of Davis v New York State Bd. of Parole, 81 AD3d 1020, 1021 [2011]).

Peters, J.P, Rose, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Egan Jr., 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

“The Executive Law does not place an outer limit on the length of [the time] assessment, and the Board’s determination may not be modified upon judicial review ‘in the absence of impropriety’ ” (Matter of Bell v Lemons, 78 AD3d 1393, 1393-1394 [2010], quoting People ex rel. Grimmick v McGreevy, 141 AD2d 989, 990 [1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 702 [1988]). Under the circumstances presented here, we cannot conclude that the Board engaged in impropriety. Petitioner’s criminal record reveals that he committed brutal sexual assaults against two young women, ages 13 and 17, using force. Moreover, he was prohibited from having contact with persons under 18 years of age as a condition of his parole, but admittedly did so by being [1006]*1006in the presence of his girlfriend’s two minor children who he brought along with his girlfriend to the parole office without authorization. In view of the foregoing, we do not find that the time assessment was excessive (see Matter of Davis v New York State Bd. of Parole, 81 AD3d 1020, 1021 [2011]).

Peters, J.P, Rose, Malone Jr., McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 1005, 935 N.Y.2d 741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murchison-v-new-york-state-division-of-parole-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack