You are here: / / DENIAL OF PAROLE MANIFESTED IRRATIONALITY BORDERING ON IMPROPRIETY (FIRST...

DENIAL OF PAROLE MANIFESTED IRRATIONALITY BORDERING ON IMPROPRIETY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined denying petitioner parole was “irrational.” The proper remedy is a new parole nearing, not granting parole in a court ruling (as Supreme Court did). Petitioner, now 51, was convicted of felony murder when she was very young. She had driven the car to where her husband was staying. A passenger in the car shot and killed her husband. The jury found petitioner did not intend that her husband be killed. Petitioner has been a model prisoner for decades:

The commissioners failed to appreciate that petitioner’s murder conviction was not for intentional murder, but rather for second-degree felony murder. The felony murder rule, of course, provides that a person is guilty of second-degree murder when, “[a]cting either alone or with one or more other persons, [she] commits or attempts to commit [violent crimes including] burglary, . . . and, in the course of and in furtherance of such crime or of immediate flight therefrom, [she], or another participant, . . . causes the death of a person other than one of the participants” … . In essence, and particularly in the context of a burglary conviction, the felony murder rule imposes strict and vicarious liability for a killing that one did not intend, provided that it was the result of an enumerated felony that one did intentionally commit. Intent to kill plays no role in a finding of felony murder … .

At the parole hearing, petitioner nonetheless accepted responsibility for her “choices and decisions that led to a chain of events that led to the death of [her] husband.” Far from showing any lack of insight into her crime, petitioner’s testimony at the parole hearing was truthful, accurate, and consistent with what the jury found happened in 1991.

Accordingly, respondent’s determination denying petitioner parole manifested “irrationality bordering on impropriety,” warranting granting the petition to vacate the denial of parole … . Matter of Kellogg v New York State Bd. of Parole, 2018 NY Slip Op 01425, First Dept 3-6-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DENIAL OF PAROLE MANIFESTED IRRATIONALITY BORDERING ON IMPROPRIETY (FIRST DEPT))/PAROLE (DENIAL OF PAROLE MANIFESTED IRRATIONALITY BORDERING ON IMPROPRIETY (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION WAS BASED UPON A LEASE ENTERED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY THE ASSETS OF WHICH WERE PURCHASED BY THE TWO DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANIES; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANTS CONSTITUTED A “MERE CONTINUATION” OF THE ORIGINAL LESSEE’S BUSINESS; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY LIMITED DISCOVERY OF ROSARIO MATERIAL AND IMPROPERLY COMMUNICATED WITH THE JURY OFF THE RECORD AND OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT AND COUNSEL.
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONERS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY DETERMINATION IN THIS EXECUTIVE LAW 63 SPECIAL PROCEEDING SOUNDING IN FRAUD STEMMING FROM UNCONSCIONABLE EQUIPMENT FINANCE LEASES AND OPPRESSIVE DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES; RESPONDENTS’ REQUEST FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY, WHICH IS DISFAVORED IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS, WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
Fees Owed by Seller to “Financial Advisor” Hired by Seller to Facilitate the Sale Were Excluded from the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA)—Doctrine of “De Facto Merger” Did Not Apply in Absence of “Continuity of Ownership”
TWO ZONING VIOLATION SUMMONSES ADDRESSING THE SAME USE OF THE PROPERTY WERE NOT DUPLICATIVE; THEREFORE THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS’ FAILURE TO APPEAL THE DISMISSAL OF THE FIRST SUMMONS DID NOT PRECLUDE THE SECOND (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE FIRST DEPT FELT CONSTRAINED BY COURT OF APPEALS PRECEDENT TO DISMISS THIS DOG INJURY CASE SOUNDING IN NEGLIGENCE, THE COURT FORCEFULLY ARGUED THE LAW SHOULD BE CHANGED TO ALLOW SUCH A SUIT.
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BUS COMPANY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE FOR PASSENGERS TO DISEMBARK AND FAILURE TO NOTIFY PORT AUTHORITY OF NEED FOR REPAIR (FIRST 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A WORK AREA ON THE 16TH FLOOR USED FOR RENOVATION WORK... MOTION FOR RESENTENCING PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE IT WAS MADE WITHIN THREE YEARS...