Opinion
2564
December 17, 2002.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered April 8, 2002, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to annul respondent's determination, dated August 15, 2000, denying petitioner's parole application, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Jose N. Torres, Petitioner-appellant, PRO S.E.
Allison Penn, for Respondent-respondent.
Before: TOM, J.P., BUCKLEY, FRIEDMAN, MARLOW, GONZALEZ, JJ.
The record demonstrates that respondent considered all of the factors relevant to the disposition of petitioner's application for parole, including petitioner's good behavior, accomplishments and work while in prison, the many letters of support on his behalf, his employability, his involvement in institutional programs and his plans upon release (see Matter of King v. New York State Div. of Parole, 83 N.Y.2d 788, 790-791; People ex rel. Herbert v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 A.D.2d 128). Although these considerations weighed in petitioner's favor, we cannot say that respondent acted arbitrarily or capriciously when it denied his parole application on the ground that his positive post-conviction activities, however commendable, remained overshadowed by the extraordinary severity of his crime (see Matter of Garcia v. New York State Div. of Parole, 239 A.D.2d 235).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.