IN THE MATTER OF SHAW v. MURRAY

It is hereby ordered that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of petitioner, the determination of the New York State Board of Parole that he violated a condition of his parole by possessing an antique pistol is supported by substantial evidence. The "conduct of a parolee which is less than criminal conduct may result in a revocation of parole where such conduct is proscribed by the conditions imposed by his parole" ( People ex rel. Walker v. Hammock, 78 AD2d 369, 372-373; see also People ex rel. Maggio v. Casscles, 28 NY2d 415, 418). Here, a condition of petitioner's parole proscribed petitioner from possessing "firearm[s] of any type," and thus the determination that petitioner's possession of the pistol at issue violated that condition is supported by substantial evidence ( see generally Matter of Fuller v. Berbary, 13 AD3d 1152; People ex rel. Fryer v. Beaver, 292 AD2d 876).