You are here: / / Denial of Parole Supported by Evidence

Denial of Parole Supported by Evidence

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the Parole Board’s denial of parole was not arbitrary and capricious.  After noting that the 2011 amendments to Executive Law 259-c(4) did not apply retroactively, the court wrote:

…[T]he Supreme Court erred in concluding that the Parole Board’s determination was arbitrary and capricious … . Although the Parole Board’s primary focus in denying parole was the nature of the crime committed, the Parole Board also looked at the petitioner’s institutional record … . The Parole Board “need not expressly discuss each of [the statutory guidelines] in its determination” …, and it was not “required specifically to articulate every factor considered” … . Whether the Parole Board considered the proper factors and followed the proper guidelines are questions that should be assessed based on the “written determination . . . evaluated in the context of the parole hearing transcript” … . Here, the hearing transcript indicates that the Parole Board gave due consideration to a number of factors that reflected well on the petitioner, but that these factors did not outweigh those factors that militated against granting parole. Matter of Fraser v Evans, 2013 NY slip Op 05900, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

You might also like
A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW MUST BE DENIED IF IT IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE OPPOSING PARTY’S CASE, EVEN IF THE MOTION HAS MERIT (SECOND DEPT).
LAW OFFICE FAILURE REJECTED AS AN EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NURSING HOME REFORM ACT (NHRA), THE ADMISSION AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE NURSING-HOME RESIDENT’S GRANDDAUGHTER DID NOT IMPOSE PERSONAL LIABILITY UPON THE GRANDDAUGHTER FOR PAYMENT OF THE COSTS OF THE RESIDENT’S CARE; THE GRANDDAUGHTER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THE BREACH-OF-CONTRACT COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DESPITE THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND DEFENDANT THEATER, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A COMMON-LAW DUTY OWED BY THE SECURITY COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF, THE SECURITY COMPANY ALLEGEDLY DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO RESTRAIN A NONPARTY WHO THEN ASSAULTED AND INJURED PLAINTIFF.
REAR MOST DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE DRIVER IN FRONT STOPPED SUDDENLY AND DID NOT SIGNAL (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS; THE PROSECUTION WAS NOT STARTED UNTIL 22 MONTHS AFTER THE INCIDENT; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
Curtailing of Defense Counsel’s Summation Argument Re: Lack of Motive Was (Harmless) Error
Show-Up Identification Should Have Been Suppressed—Defendant Was Only Person In the Street, Was In Hand-Cuffs, and Was Surrounded by Police

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Defendant Did Not Consent to Entry of Police Into His Home—the Police... Summary Judgment Can Not Be Granted Based on Affidavit By Someone with No Personal...