Decided November 27, 2007. Reported below, 41 AD3d 1128, 2007 NY Slip Op 77193(U).
Notably, however, the presentence investigation report did not indicate that the charges relating to this individual had been dismissed and petitioner never sought to have the report corrected. Given that petitioner did not timely challenge the information contained in the presentence investigation report before the sentencing court, he is precluded from asserting that the Board was not entitled to rely upon the information contained therein ( see Matter of Champion v Dennison, 40 AD3d 1181, 1182, lv dismissed 9 NY3d 913; Matter of Cox v New York State Div. of Parole, 11 AD3d 766, 768, lv denied 4 NY3d 703). Upon reviewing the record, we find that the Board considered the relevant statutory factors under Executive Law § 259-i ( see Matter of Grigger v Goord, 41 AD3d 1128, 1129, lv dismissed 9 NY3d 985) and that its decision is not affected by "`irrationality bordering on impropriety'" ( Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 476, quoting Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77). Therefore, we find no reason to disturb its decision.
We affirm. The record discloses that the Board considered the relevant factors set forth in Executive Law § 259-i in making its decision, including not only the seriousness of petitioner's crimes, but also his criminal history, prison disciplinary record, program accomplishments and postrelease plans ( see Matter of Motti v Alexander, 54 AD3d 1114, 1115; Matter of Grigger v Goord, 41 AD3d 1128, 1129, lv dismissed 9 NY3d 985). The Board was not required to give each of the factors equal weight and could, as it did, place greater emphasis on the disturbing nature of the crimes at issue ( see Matter of Alamo v New York State Div. of Parole, 52 AD3d 1163, 1163-1164). While the Board did not expressly discuss the sentencing minutes, the record reveals that they were properly before it ( see Matter of Johnson v Dennison, 48 AD3d 1082, 1083).