PEOPLE v. WARDEN

The determination that petitioner violated his parole by stalking and harassing the 17-year-old victim was supported by substantial evidence ( see generally People ex rel. Vega v Smith, 66 NY2d 130, 139). The hearing testimony established that the victim was frightened, annoyed and alarmed by petitioner's repeated conduct over a period of months, and petitioner's intent could be inferred from the surrounding circumstances ( see Matter of Reiss v Reiss, 221 AD2d 280, lv denied 89 NY2d 801). Respondent's decision to impose a 24-month time assessment rather than accept the administrative law judge's (ALJ) recommendation of an 18-month assessment was a provident exercise of discretion. The recommendation of the ALJ is advisory and not binding on respondent ( see People ex rel. Coleman v Smith, 75 AD2d 706, 707, lv denied 50 NY2d 804).