Opinion
2015-01-14
In the Matter of Mark MARSZALEK, appellant, v. Tina Marie STANFORD, as Chairwoman of the State Board of Parole, respondent.
Mark Marszalek, Otisville, N.Y., appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Claude S. Platton of counsel), for respondent.
Mark Marszalek, Otisville, N.Y., appellant pro se.Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Claude S. Platton of counsel), for respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Division of Parole dated May 22, 2013, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's request to be released on parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bartlett, J.), dated January 16, 2014, 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 Division 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 ( seeExecutive 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; Matter of Ward v. New York State Div. of Parole, 26 A.D.3d 712, 713, 809 N.Y.S.2d 671). In this case, the hearing record and the text of the respondent'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., MASTRO, ROMAN and MILLER, JJ., concur.