Opinion
2003-05121.
Decided June 21, 2004.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the New York State Board of Parole, dated August 30, 2002, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's request to be released on parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Molea, J.), entered April 28, 2003, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Jose Mata, Warwick, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Michelle Aronowitz and Patrick J. Walsh of counsel), for respondents.
Before: SANDRA L. TOWNES, J.P., STEPHEN G. CRANE, ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A determination of the New York State Board of Parole (hereinafter the Board), if made after consideration of the statutory factors ( see Executive Law § 259-i[a], 2[c][A]), is not subject to judicial review absent a "showing of irrationality bordering on impropriety" ( Matter of Silmon v. Travis, 95 N.Y.2d 470, 476; Matter of Russo v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 N.Y.2d 69, 77; Matter of Almeyda v. New York State Div. of Parole, 290 A.D.2d 505, 506). The hearing record demonstrates that the Board considered the statutory factors. It was not required to give equal weight to each factor, nor was it required to discuss each of the factors in its determination ( see Matter of Johnson v. Travis, 284 A.D.2d 686, 687; cf. Matter of King v. New York State Div. of Parole, 83 N.Y.2d 788, 791). The Board's determination was made in accordance with law and was not irrational. Therefore, it should not be disturbed ( see Matter of Kirkpatrick v. Travis, 5 A.D.3d 385; Matter of Colon v. Travis, 305 A.D.2d 407; Matter of Romer v. Travis, 299 A.D.2d 553).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
TOWNES, J.P., CRANE, SPOLZINO and LIFSON, JJ., concur.