Opinion
12-16-2015
In the Matter of Jason HUNTLEY, appellant, v. Tina Marie STANFORD, etc., respondent.
Jason Huntley, Otisville, N.Y., appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Karen W. Lin of counsel), for respondent.
Jason Huntley, Otisville, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Karen W. Lin of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Board of Parole dated February 15, 2013, denying, after a hearing, the petitioner's application to be released to parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bartlett, J.), dated December 13, 2013, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Judicial review of the determinations of the New York State Board of Parole (hereinafter the Parole Board) is narrowly circumscribed (see Matter of Briguglio v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 24 N.Y.2d 21, 29, 298 N.Y.S.2d 704, 246 N.E.2d 512 ; Matter of Hardwick v. Dennison, 43 A.D.3d 406, 407, 840 N.Y.S.2d 425 ; Matter of Rhoden v. New York State Div. of Parole, 270 A.D.2d 550, 551, 704 N.Y.S.2d 521 ). Moreover, while the Parole Board is required to consider the relevant statutory factors (see Executive Law § 259–i[2][c] ) in reaching its determination, it is not required to address each factor in its decision or accord all of the factors equal weight (see Matter of Thomches v. Evans, 108 A.D.3d 724, 968 N.Y.S.2d 888 ; Matter of Samuel v. Alexander, 69 A.D.3d 861, 862, 892 N.Y.S.2d 557 ; Matter of Comfort v. New York State Div. of Parole, 68 A.D.3d 1295, 1296, 890 N.Y.S.2d 700 ; see also Matter of Olmosperez v. Evans, 114 A.D.3d 1077, 1078, 980 N.Y.S.2d 845, affd. 26 N.Y.3d 1014, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d ––––, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07700 [2015] ). In this case, the hearing record and the text of the Parole Board's determination establish that the requisite factors were properly considered.
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
Since the petitioner failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating that the challenged determination was irrational, the Supreme Court correctly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding (see Matter of Thomches v. Evans, 108 A.D.3d at 724–725, 968 N.Y.S.2d 888 ; Matter of Samuel v. Alexander, 69 A.D.3d at 862, 892 N.Y.S.2d 557 ; Matter of Hardwick v. Dennison, 43 A.D.3d at 407, 840 N.Y.S.2d 425 ).
ENG, P.J., DILLON, CHAMBERS and BARROS, JJ., concur.