Opinion
March 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Carey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
It is now well settled that a parolee has the right to be represented by counsel at a final parole revocation hearing (see, Executive Law § 259-i [f] [v]; People ex rel. Menechino v. Warden, 27 N.Y.2d 376; People ex rel. Martinez v Walters, 99 A.D.2d 476). When determining the adequacy of that representation, a reviewing court must note the duration of the representation, together with the evidence, the law, and the circumstances present in the context of the particular proceeding under review (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v Donovan, 184 A.D.2d 654). Based on the record before us, we find that the appellant was afforded meaningful representation.
The appellant's challenge to the determination fixing the period of his reimprisonment is without merit. The Parole Board is not required to fix a date for a parole reconsideration hearing (see, Matter of Russo v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 N.Y.2d 69; Matter of Bulger v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 183 A.D.2d 451). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.