Putland v. Herbert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Putland v. Herbert

231 A.D.2d 893, 648 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10737

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 893 (Putland v. Herbert) 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

Putland v. Herbert, 231 A.D.2d 893, 648 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the petition. The decision to deny parole may be based upon the seriousness of the crime and its violent nature (see, Matter of Weir v New York State Div. of Parole, 205 AD2d 906, 907) and, "[i]n the absence of a convincing demonstration to the contrary, it is presumed that the New York State Division of Parole acted properly in accordance with statutory requirements” (Matter of McClain v New York State Div. of Parole, 204 AD2d 456). Petitioner failed to establish that the Parole Board did not consider the enumerated factors in Executive Law § 259-i (1) (a) and (2) (c). We conclude on this record that the Parole Board acted in accordance with the statutory criteria and that its discretionary release decision therefore is not subject to judicial review (see, Executive Law § 259-i [5]; Matter of McClain v New York State Div. of Parole, supra, at 457). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J.—CPLR art 78.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting the petition. The decision to deny parole may be based upon the seriousness of the crime and its violent nature (see, Matter of Weir v New York State Div. of Parole, 205 AD2d 906, 907) and, "[i]n the absence of a convincing demonstration to the contrary, it is presumed that the New York State Division of Parole acted properly in accordance with statutory requirements” (Matter of McClain v New York State Div. of Parole, 204 AD2d 456). Petitioner failed to establish that the Parole Board did not consider the enumerated factors in Executive Law § 259-i (1) (a) and (2) (c). We conclude on this record that the Parole Board acted in accordance with the statutory criteria and that its discretionary release decision therefore is not subject to judicial review (see, Executive Law § 259-i [5]; Matter of McClain v New York State Div. of Parole, supra, at 457). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J.—CPLR art 78.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 893, 648 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/putland-v-herbert-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack