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
AT THE TIME DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE OFFENSE IN 2007, IT WAS NOT A REGISTRABLE OFFENSE UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL THE RECORD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DENIED; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TO COMPLY WITH THE ‘CULTURAL NORMS’ OF HASIDIC JUDAISM WHEN THE CHILDREN STAY WITH HIM (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXECUTIVE-ORDER COVID TOLLS APPLY TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL STATUTE, RENDERING THE INDICTMENT OF THE DEFENDANT TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
THE TENANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION BECAUSE THE RELIEF WAS SOUGHT AFTER THE DEADLINE IN THE NOTICE TO CURE; THAT DEADLINE WAS CONTROLLED BY THE LEASE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT EXTENDED BY THE COVID-RELATED EXECUTIVE ORDERS (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER ALLEGED SHE MADE PAYMENTS TO THIRD PARTIES IN THIS SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING; FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO REIMBURSE MOTHER WITHOUT PROOF THE PAYMENTS WERE IN FACT MADE BY MOTHER (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHEN HE FELL FROM A LADDER 2ND DEPT.
PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER WAS INJURED CHANGING THE CARBON DIOXIDE CARTRIDGE FOR AN ANIMAL TRANQUILIZER GUN; THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE MANUFACTURER SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-E/LABOR LAW 27-A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
OMISSION OF RETURN DATE FROM AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, WHICH DID NOT RESULT IN PREJUDICE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISREGARDED AS A TECHNICAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2024 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...