Padilla v. Travis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Padilla v. Travis

274 A.D.2d 735, 711 N.Y.S.2d 802, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7793

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

DecidedJuly 13, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 274 A.D.2d 735 (Padilla v. Travis) 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

Padilla v. Travis, 274 A.D.2d 735, 711 N.Y.S.2d 802, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7793 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia, Jr., J.), entered February 14, 2000 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count each of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and is currently serving concurrent prison sentences of IV2 to 3 years and 2 to 6 years, respectively. In April 1999, petitioner’s application for parole release was denied by the Board of Parole and, following an administrative appeal, this decision was affirmed. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal followed.

We affirm. Because the record discloses that the Board considered all relevant factors in denying petitioner’s parole request, including the serious nature of his conviction and such [736]*736positive factors as his good institutional and disciplinary records while incarcerated, judicial review of the Board’s determination is precluded (see, Executive Law § 259-i [5]; see also, Matter of McGovern v Travis, 268 AD2d 924). While it is true that petitioner received a certificate of earned eligibility, the Board specifically found that petitioner could not remain at liberty without violating the law and his release at this time would not be compatible with the welfare of society (see, Correction Law § 805; Matter of Nieves v New York State Div. of Parole, 251 AD2d 836). Accordingly, the Board’s finding was made in accordance with the law and we find no reason to conclude that it abused its discretion. We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim that the Board improperly reviewed confidential documents without disclosing them to him, and find them to be without merit.

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, 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

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia, Jr., J.), entered February 14, 2000 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count each of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and is currently serving concurrent prison sentences of IV2 to 3 years and 2 to 6 years, respectively. In April 1999, petitioner’s application for parole release was denied by the Board of Parole and, following an administrative appeal, this decision was affirmed. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal followed.

We affirm. Because the record discloses that the Board considered all relevant factors in denying petitioner’s parole request, including the serious nature of his conviction and such [736]*736positive factors as his good institutional and disciplinary records while incarcerated, judicial review of the Board’s determination is precluded (see, Executive Law § 259-i [5]; see also, Matter of McGovern v Travis, 268 AD2d 924). While it is true that petitioner received a certificate of earned eligibility, the Board specifically found that petitioner could not remain at liberty without violating the law and his release at this time would not be compatible with the welfare of society (see, Correction Law § 805; Matter of Nieves v New York State Div. of Parole, 251 AD2d 836). Accordingly, the Board’s finding was made in accordance with the law and we find no reason to conclude that it abused its discretion. We have examined petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim that the Board improperly reviewed confidential documents without disclosing them to him, and find them to be without merit.

Mercure, J. P., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D.2d 735, 711 N.Y.S.2d 802, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/padilla-v-travis-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack