Rock v. New York State Board of Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rock v. New York State Board of Parole

124 A.D.2d 804, 508 N.Y.S.2d 527, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62125

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 804 (Rock 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

Rock v. New York State Board of Parole, 124 A.D.2d 804, 508 N.Y.S.2d 527, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

The serious nature of the crime for which the petitioner was incarcerated and his unsatisfactory performance on a prior parole release constituted sufficient grounds for parole denial [805]*805(see, Matter of Harden v New York State Bd. of Parole, 103 AD2d 777). The papers submitted in support of the petitioner’s present application failed to make a convincing showing that the respondent Board did not exercise its discretion in conformity with the law when it denied him parole release. Consequently, the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding was properly dismissed because such discretionary decisions of the Board, when made in accordance with the law, are not judicially reviewable (see, Executive Law § 259-i [5]; Matter of Abrams v New York State Bd. of Parole, 88 AD2d 951). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

The serious nature of the crime for which the petitioner was incarcerated and his unsatisfactory performance on a prior parole release constituted sufficient grounds for parole denial [805]*805(see, Matter of Harden v New York State Bd. of Parole, 103 AD2d 777). The papers submitted in support of the petitioner’s present application failed to make a convincing showing that the respondent Board did not exercise its discretion in conformity with the law when it denied him parole release. Consequently, the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding was properly dismissed because such discretionary decisions of the Board, when made in accordance with the law, are not judicially reviewable (see, Executive Law § 259-i [5]; Matter of Abrams v New York State Bd. of Parole, 88 AD2d 951). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 804, 508 N.Y.S.2d 527, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rock-v-new-york-state-board-of-parole-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack