Patterson v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Patterson v. New York State Board of Parole

202 A.D.2d 940, 610 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3055

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 202 A.D.2d 940 (Patterson 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

Patterson v. New York State Board of Parole, 202 A.D.2d 940, 610 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3055 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered August 11, 1993 in Clinton 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.

In denying his request for parole, petitioner contends that respondent placed undue emphasis on past statements he made that he had committed other crimes and the offense resulting in the current conviction. In rejecting this argument, we note that parole release is a discretionary decision which, if made in conformity with statutory requirements, is not reviewable. Petitioner has failed to make a convincing showing that respondent considered erroneous information in denying his request. In any event, respondent’s decision was also based on the extreme gravity of the offense for which petitioner was imprisoned. Respondent was free to place whatever weight it believed appropriate upon the factors it is required to consider. Respondent’s decision to deny parole is supported by the record and must be upheld. Petitioner’s remaining arguments have been examined and rejected for lack of merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich 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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered August 11, 1993 in Clinton 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.

In denying his request for parole, petitioner contends that respondent placed undue emphasis on past statements he made that he had committed other crimes and the offense resulting in the current conviction. In rejecting this argument, we note that parole release is a discretionary decision which, if made in conformity with statutory requirements, is not reviewable. Petitioner has failed to make a convincing showing that respondent considered erroneous information in denying his request. In any event, respondent’s decision was also based on the extreme gravity of the offense for which petitioner was imprisoned. Respondent was free to place whatever weight it believed appropriate upon the factors it is required to consider. Respondent’s decision to deny parole is supported by the record and must be upheld. Petitioner’s remaining arguments have been examined and rejected for lack of merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 940, 610 N.Y.S.2d 96, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack