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
THE AMENDMENT TO THE FAMILY COURT ACT WHICH PRECLUDES A FINDING OF NEGLECT BASED SOLELY ON MARIJUANA USE SHOULD BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY; HOWEVER HERE THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF MOTHER’S NEGLECT OF THE CHILD BASED UPON HER “ABUSE” (AS OPPOSED TO “USE”) OF MARIJUANA (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE DENTISTS’ FEE-SPLITTING AGREEMENT VIOLATED THE EDUCATION LAW; A COURT WILL NOT ENFORCE AN ILLEGAL CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Homeowner Demonstrated She Did Not Have Actual or Constructive Notice of the Dangerous Condition and Did Not Create the Dangerous Condition (Deck Collapsed When Plaintiff Was Inspecting the Property Prior to Beginning Work)
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE THE FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR PETITIONER MOTHER TO SEEK SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) FOR HER SON (SECOND DEPT).
EXTRINSIC COLLATERAL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO IMPEACH DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S CREDIBILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE TRIAL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE $400,000 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN ONE INSTANCE OF EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A NEGLECT FINDING 2ND DEPT.
THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE FOR WHICH THERE ALLEGEDLY WAS NO CONSENT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE CLAIMED INJURIES, THEREFORE THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
A Prima Facie Case Under the Dram Shop Act Had Been Made Against Both Bars Which Served Plaintiff’s Decedent, Even Though the Alcohol Served at the First Bar Would Have Metabolized by the Time of the Accident Had Plaintiff’s Decedent Not Continued to Drink at the Second Bar

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

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