Velasquez v. Travis

278 A.D.2d 651, 717 N.Y.S.2d 702, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13026
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 14, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 651 (Velasquez v. Travis) 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
Velasquez v. Travis, 278 A.D.2d 651, 717 N.Y.S.2d 702, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13026 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

Peters, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Torraca, J.), entered June 9, 2000 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of [652]*652the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Petitioner is currently serving a prison sentence of six years to life for his conviction of attempted robbery in the second degree. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination of the Board of Parole which denied his second request for parole release and imposed a 24-month hold before petitioner can again be considered for parole. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

The record belies petitioner’s assertion that the Board failed to consider all relevant statutory factors and focused solely on the seriousness of his crime. In addition to petitioner’s criminal history and parole and probation violations, the Board specifically noted petitioner’s receipt of an earned eligibility certificate and his other institutional achievements were noted during the parole hearing. In view of the foregoing, it cannot be said that the Board’s determination finding that there was a reasonable probability that petitioner would not live and remain at liberty without violating the law and that his release would not be compatible with the welfare of society was either arbitrary of capricious and, therefore, further judicial review of the issue is precluded (see, Matter of Howard v New York State Bd. of Parole, 270 AD2d 539).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III and Spain, 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

Related

Rivera v. Travis
289 A.D.2d 829 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Connelly v. New York State Division of Parole
286 A.D.2d 792 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Fuller v. New York State Board of Parole
284 A.D.2d 853 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Wilson v. Board of Parole
284 A.D.2d 846 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 A.D.2d 651, 717 N.Y.S.2d 702, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velasquez-v-travis-nyappdiv-2000.