Ramos v. Recore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramos v. Recore

278 A.D.2d 775, 718 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13949

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

DecidedDecember 28, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 775 (Ramos v. Recore) 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

Ramos v. Recore, 278 A.D.2d 775, 718 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13949 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered April 7, 2000 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s application for temporary work release.

Petitioner’s application for permission to participate in a temporary release program was denied based upon his lengthy criminal history spanning over 20 years, the seriousness of his current offense and his failure to benefit from his prior participation in a work release program. Supreme Court dismissed petitioner’s CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination and we affirm. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the record reveals that respondent considered petitioner’s accomplishments while incarcerated and did not place excessive emphasis upon his criminal history or improperly consider his disability (see, Matter of Dixon v Recore, 271 AD2d 778). Inasmuch as respondent’s determination neither violated a statutory requirement nor a constitutional right and was not affected by irrationality bordering on impropriety (see, [776]*776Matter of Sanchez v Recore, 257 AD2d 835, 836; Matter of Peana v Recore, 257 AD2d 862, 863; Matter of Williams v Recore, 251 AD2d 833, 833-834), we conclude that the determination should not be disturbed.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin 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 (LaBuda, J.), entered April 7, 2000 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s application for temporary work release.

Petitioner’s application for permission to participate in a temporary release program was denied based upon his lengthy criminal history spanning over 20 years, the seriousness of his current offense and his failure to benefit from his prior participation in a work release program. Supreme Court dismissed petitioner’s CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination and we affirm. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the record reveals that respondent considered petitioner’s accomplishments while incarcerated and did not place excessive emphasis upon his criminal history or improperly consider his disability (see, Matter of Dixon v Recore, 271 AD2d 778). Inasmuch as respondent’s determination neither violated a statutory requirement nor a constitutional right and was not affected by irrationality bordering on impropriety (see, [776]*776Matter of Sanchez v Recore, 257 AD2d 835, 836; Matter of Peana v Recore, 257 AD2d 862, 863; Matter of Williams v Recore, 251 AD2d 833, 833-834), we conclude that the determination should not be disturbed.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 775, 718 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramos-v-recore-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack