Opinion
May 9, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that judgment was superseded by the order made upon reargument, and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered May 18, 1992, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In the absence of a convincing demonstration to the contrary, it is presumed that the New York State Division of Parole acted properly in accordance with statutory requirements (see, People ex rel. Thomas v. Superintendent of Arthur Kill Correctional Facility, 124 A.D.2d 848; see also, Matter of Gonzalez v Rodriguez, 135 A.D.2d 633, 634; compare, Matter of King v. New York State Div. of Parole, 190 A.D.2d 423, 433-434, affd 83 N.Y.2d 788). Here, the petitioner failed to make a convincing showing that the Division failed to consider each of the factors enumerated by statute (see, Executive Law § 259-i [c]), as it was required to do in making its decision (see, People ex rel. Thomas v. Superintendent of Arthur Kill Correctional Facility, supra, at 849; Matter of King v. New York State Div. of Parole, supra, at 431). Moreover, the Board's written statement setting forth its reasons for denying parole, i.e., the petitioner's "pattern of offenses, history of alcohol abuse and the seriousness of the present offense", was, on this record, sufficient (see, Executive Law § 259-i [a]; People ex rel. Thomas v. Superintendent of Arthur Kill Correctional Facility, supra, at 849), notwithstanding the petitioner's exemplary institutional record and educational achievements, all of which were considered by the Board. Because the record indicates that the Board acted in accordance with statutory criteria, its discretionary release decision is not subject to judicial review (see, Executive Law § 259-i; Matter of Briguglio v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 24 N.Y.2d 21, 29; Matter of Gerena v Rodriguez, 192 A.D.2d 606; Matter of Hall v. New York State Executive Dept., 188 A.D.2d 791; Matter of Macon v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 176 A.D.2d 880; cf., Matter of King v. New York State Div. of Parole, 190 A.D.2d 423, 431, supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly found that the petitioner was not entitled to relief.
We have considered the petitioner's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit (see, Matter of Ganci v. Hammock, 120 A.D.2d 666; Matter of Wilson v. Town of Islip, 179 A.D.2d 763, 764). Miller, J.P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.