AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

IN THE MATTER OF FIDENCIO ROSARIO, Appellant, v. BRION D. TRAVIS, as CHAIR OF THE NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner is currently incarcerated following his 1991 conviction of the crimes of robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (People v. Rosario, 188 A.D.2d 422, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 886, 892). The judgment of conviction arose out of an incident wherein petitioner and three accomplices robbed a clothing store, holding the 13 individuals present therein as hostages. Petitioner threatened some of the hostages with a loaded handgun as he robbed them of jewelry. He later pointed the weapon at one of the arresting police officers. Petitioner's appearance before the Board of Parole in October 2001 resulted in the denial of his application, based in particular upon the violent nature of his crimes. He thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the dismissal of which by Supreme Court prompted this appeal.

Determinations rendered by the Board are not subject to judicial review so long as they comport with the applicable statutory requirements (see Executive Law § 259-i; see also Matter of Bramble v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 307 A.D.2d 463). The record herein discloses that the Board considered the relevant factors, as required by Executive Law § 259-i (5). Having made this showing, judicial intervention is only warranted in matters where the Board's decision exhibits "irrationality bordering on impropriety" (Matter of Silmon v. Travis, 95 N.Y.2d 470, 476). The Board's decision denying petitioner's request for parole release is clearly rational under the circumstances presented here; hence, it will not be disturbed.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ROSARIO v. TRAVIS
(Nov 18, 2003)