From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alamo v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 26, 2008
52 A.D.3d 1163 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 504152.

June 26, 2008.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Zwack, J.), entered December 14, 2007 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parole release.

Louis Alamo, Warwick, appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Rose, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ.


In 1987, petitioner was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to 20 years to life in prison. Petitioner made his second appearance before the Board of Parole in August 2006. The Board denied his request for parole release and ordered him held for an additional 24 months. Petitioner filed an administrative appeal and then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition. This appeal by petitioner ensued.

We affirm. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, the record discloses that the Board did not base its decision solely upon the nature of the underlying crime. Rather, in denying petitioner's request for parole release, the Board also considered other pertinent statutory factors ( see Executive Law § 259-i), including petitioner's institutional and disciplinary record, lack of a criminal history and postrelease plans ( see Matter of Montalvo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 AD3d 1438). The Board was not required to give equal weight to each factor and was entitled to, as it did, place greater emphasis on the gravity of the instant offense ( see Matter of Gardiner v New York State Div. of Parole, 48 AD3d 871, 872). Petitioner's remaining contentions are unavailing. Given the foregoing, we find that the Board's decision does not exhibit "`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) and, as such, we decline to disturb it.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

Alamo v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 26, 2008
52 A.D.3d 1163 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Alamo v. State

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Louis ALAMO, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jun 26, 2008

Citations

52 A.D.3d 1163 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 5860
860 N.Y.S.2d 326

Citing Cases

Karlin v. Alexander

We affirm. The record discloses that the Board considered the relevant factors set forth in Executive Law §…

Hall v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole

We affirm. The Board considered the relevant factors in denying petitioner parole release, including the…