You are here: / / PAROLE BOARD DID NOT CONSIDER PETITIONER’S YOUTH AT THE TIME OF THE...
,

PAROLE BOARD DID NOT CONSIDER PETITIONER’S YOUTH AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSES AND APPEARS TO HAVE DENIED PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR RELEASE ON PAROLE SOLELY BASED ON THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSES, DE NOVO INTERVIEW IN FRONT OF A DIFFERENT PANEL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the parole board did not support the denial of petitioner’s application for release on parole with detailed reasons as required by Executive Law 259-i[2][a][i]. Petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the murders during a robbery attempt. He has been incarcerated for 36 years. He earned college degrees and assumed an leadership role in helping inmates. The Second Department concluded the parole board focused on the nature of the offenses and did not take petitioner’s youth at the time of the offenses, or his accomplishments, into consideration:

“[A] juvenile homicide offender . . . has a substantive constitutional right not to be punished with life imprisonment for a crime reflect[ing] transient immaturity'”… . “[T]he foundational principle’ of the Eighth Amendment jurisprudence regarding punishment for juveniles is that [the] imposition of a [s]tate’s most severe penalties on juvenile offenders cannot proceed as though they were not children'” … . “A parole board is no more entitled to subject an offender to the penalty of life in prison in contravention of this rule than is a legislature or a sentencing court”… . Consequently, “[f]or those persons convicted of crimes committed as juveniles who, but for a favorable parole determination will be punished by life in prison, the [Parole] Board must consider youth and its attendant characteristics in relationship to the commission of the crime at issue” … . …

Neither the transcript of the September 2016 interview nor the Parole Board’s September 2016 determination shows that the Parole Board considered the petitioner’s youth at the time and “its attendant characteristics” in relationship to the crimes he committed. Instead, the record reflects that the Parole Board did not factor in the petitioner’s age at the time and the impact that his age had on his decisions and actions during the commission of these crimes when it decided to deny him parole release based on “the serious nature of the instant offenses.” Matter of Rivera v Stanford, 2019 NY Slip Op 03601, Second Dept 5-8-19

​

You might also like
LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE MEANS AND METHODS OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK (SECOND DEPT).
Ornaments Hanging from Rear-View Mirror Justified Vehicle Stop
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A PATIENT IN DEFENDANT REHAB FACILITY, FELL WHEN WALKING UNATTENDED BACK TO HIS BED FROM THE BATHROOM; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BED ALARM WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE; THAT CAUSE OF ACTION SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT EXPERT EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION (WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED IF THE CAUSE OF ACTION SOUNDED IN NEGLIGENCE, AS THE MOTION COURT HAD HELD) (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE DETAILS OF ARRESTS JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF PISTOL PERMIT.
BECAUSE DEFENDANT OBJECTED TO THE AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD (SECOND DEPT).
THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT AIRWAY CLEANERS AND DEFENDANT AMERICAN AIRLINES IN THIS AIRPORT SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT ENTIRELY DISPLACE AMERICAN AIRLINES’ DUTY TO KEEP THE BATHROOM SAFE; THEREFORE THE CONTRACT COULD NOT SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR AIRWAY CLEANERS’ LIABILTY TO PLAINTIFF UNDER ESPINAL (SECOND DEPT).
IN HIS MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA TO CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF WEAPONS, DEFENDANT CLAIMED HE DID NOT KNOW THE WEAPONS, WHICH BELONGED TO SOMEONE ELSE, WERE STORED AT HIS MOTHER’S HOUSE, WHERE HE DID NOT RESIDE; THIS CLAIM OF INNOCENCE (POSSESSION WAS NOT “VOLUNTARY”) WAS SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED TO WARRANT A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’ CLOTHING STORE’S EMPLOYEE ALLEGEDLY ATTEMPTED TO RECORD PLAINTIFF IN A CHANGING ROOM; THE NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED ON THE ALLEGATION THE STORE DID NOT CONDUCT A BACKGROUND CHECK BEFORE HIRING THE EMPLOYEE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD... SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION...