From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 1, 2010
75 A.D.3d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 508324.

July 1, 2010.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered September 30, 2009 in Franklin 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.

Jerome Cohen, Malone, appellant pro se.

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

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Stein, JJ.


Petitioner was convicted in 1987 of attempted sodomy in the second degree and was sentenced to a prison term of four years to life. The conviction arose out of petitioner's sexual encounters with a young girl, and followed a decades-long course of deviant sexual behavior that had resulted in numerous prior convictions. The Board of Parole denied petitioner's 2008 request for parole release, and he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Board's determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. The record reflects that the Board considered the pertinent factors set forth in Executive Law § 259-i, including petitioner's postrelease plans, earned eligibility certificate, institutional record, the nature of the underlying offense and his prior criminal history ( see Matter of Ruiz v New York State Div. of Parole, 70 AD3d 1162, 1163; Matter of Karlin v Alexander, 57 AD3d 1156, 1156-1157, lv denied 12 NY3d 704). As the Board was entitled to — and did — stress the nature of the underlying offense, petitioner's troubling criminal history and his prison disciplinary record over other factors, we cannot say that its decision demonstrates "irrationality bordering on impropriety" and will not disturb it ( Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77; see Matter of Karlin v Alexander, 57 AD3d at 1157; Matter of Wellman v Dennison, 23 AD3d 974, 975).

Petitioner's remaining arguments have been considered and, to the extent they are properly before us, have been found to be unpersuasive.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In re Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 1, 2010
75 A.D.3d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

In re Cohen

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JEROME COHEN, Appellant, v. HENRY LEMONS, as Chair of the…

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

Date published: Jul 1, 2010

Citations

75 A.D.3d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 5835
903 N.Y.S.2d 280

Citing Cases

People v. Velez

The Board may consider the underlying crimes for which an inmate was convicted but must also consider the…

Murray v. Evans

Initially, we disagree with petitioner's contention that the Board failed to adequately state a basis for its…