Ramirez v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramirez v. New York State Board of Parole

214 A.D.2d 441, 625 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4417

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

DecidedApril 20, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 441 (Ramirez 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

Ramirez v. New York State Board of Parole, 214 A.D.2d 441, 625 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edith Miller, J.), entered May 25, 1994, confirming respondent Parole Board’s determination, dated March 4, 1993, revoking petitioner’s parole and returning him to prison for 18 months following his parole violation, and dismissing the petition, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul said determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The respondents’ determination to impose a penalty of 18 months reincarceration after the petitioner violated his parole by moving to New Jersey and not reporting to his parole officer for more than three months was not "so irrational as to border on impropriety” (People ex rel. Herbert v New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 AD2d 128, 133). While neither the Parole Board’s decision nor the Hearing Officer’s recommendation incorporated all the relevant factors previously raised, it is presumed that they were considered and, under the circumstances, the basis for the decision was sufficiently detailed (People ex rel. Haderxhanji v New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 [442]*442AD2d 368). We have considered all other claims raised by the petitioner and find them to be meritless. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edith Miller, J.), entered May 25, 1994, confirming respondent Parole Board’s determination, dated March 4, 1993, revoking petitioner’s parole and returning him to prison for 18 months following his parole violation, and dismissing the petition, brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul said determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The respondents’ determination to impose a penalty of 18 months reincarceration after the petitioner violated his parole by moving to New Jersey and not reporting to his parole officer for more than three months was not "so irrational as to border on impropriety” (People ex rel. Herbert v New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 AD2d 128, 133). While neither the Parole Board’s decision nor the Hearing Officer’s recommendation incorporated all the relevant factors previously raised, it is presumed that they were considered and, under the circumstances, the basis for the decision was sufficiently detailed (People ex rel. Haderxhanji v New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 [442]*442AD2d 368). We have considered all other claims raised by the petitioner and find them to be meritless. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 441, 625 N.Y.S.2d 505, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack