From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holmes v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 30, 2017
151 A.D.3d 1954 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

06-30-2017

In the Matter of William HOLMES, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Anthony ANNUCCI, Acting Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent–Respondent.

Wyoming County–Attica Legal Aid Bureau, Warsaw (Adam W. Koch of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent.


Wyoming County–Attica Legal Aid Bureau, Warsaw (Adam W. Koch of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kate H. Nepveu of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his petition pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the determination of the Parole Board (Board) denying him parole release. "It is well settled that parole release decisions are discretionary and will not be disturbed so long as the Board complied with the statutory requirements enumerated in Executive Law § 259–i" (Matter of Gssime v. New York State Div. of Parole, 84 A.D.3d 1630, 1631, 923 N.Y.S.2d 307, lv. dismissed 17 N.Y.3d 847, 930 N.Y.S.2d 542, 954 N.E.2d 1168 ; see Matter of Johnson v. New York State Div. of Parole, 65 A.D.3d 838, 839, 884 N.Y.S.2d 545 ). Contrary to petitioner's contention, we conclude that the Board did not rely on incorrect information in making its determination, specifically that petitioner had not completed the alcohol and substance abuse program (ASAT). Petitioner admitted that ASAT had been recommended to him, and his statement that his counselor did not think he needed ASAT because he had already taken it previously does not make that information erroneous. We reject petitioner's further contentions that the Board looked exclusively to past-focused factors and failed to consider all of the factors in a fair manner. The record establishes that the Board appropriately considered the relevant factors in denying petitioner's application for release, including, inter alia, the underlying offense, petitioner's criminal history and prior violations of parole, his institutional adjustment, and his plans upon release (see Matter of Kenefick v. Sticht, 139 A.D.3d 1380, 1381, 31 N.Y.S.3d 367, lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 902, 2016 WL 4742517 ).

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.


Summaries of

Holmes v. Annucci

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Jun 30, 2017
151 A.D.3d 1954 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Holmes v. Annucci

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of William HOLMES, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Anthony ANNUCCI…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 30, 2017

Citations

151 A.D.3d 1954 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
151 A.D.3d 1954
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 5372