Opinion
November 12, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (King, J.).
Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The seriousness of the offenses committed by the petitioner constitutes a sufficient justification for the Board's denial of parole (see, Matter of Bacon v Hammock, 96 A.D.2d 557; Matter of Shapiro v Hammock, 67 A.D.2d 713, lv denied 47 N.Y.2d 710; Matter of Consilvio v New York State Bd. of Parole, 57 A.D.2d 955). A review of the record indicates that the Board acted in accordance with statutory requirements (see, People ex rel. Herbert v New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 A.D.2d 128, appeal withdrawn 62 N.Y.2d 617), and since there has been no "showing of irrationality bordering on impropriety", judicial intervention is precluded (Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 N.Y.2d 69, 77; see, Executive Law § 259-i). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.