DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The record demonstrates that the determination of the New York State Board of Parole (hereinafter the Board) denying the petitioner's second parole request does not show irrationality bordering on impropriety (see Matter of Silmon v. Travis, 95 N.Y.2d 470, 476; Matter of Russo v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 N.Y.2d 69, 77; Matter of Almeyda v. New York State Div. of Parole, 290 A.D.2d 505; Matter of Thomas v. New York State Div. of Parole, 286 A.D.2d 393, 394; Matter of Larrier v. New York State Bd. of Parole Appeals Unit, 283 A.D.2d 700). The Board was justified in considering, among other factors, the severity of the underlying crime (see Executive Law 259-i[c]), Matter of King v. New York State Div. of Parole, 83 N.Y.2d 788, 790; Matter of Crews v. New York State Executive Dept. Bd. of Parole Appeals Unit, 281 A.D.2d 672; Matter of Trobiano v. State of New York Div. of Parole, 285 A.D.2d 812, 813; Matter of Nelson v. New York State Parole Bd., 274 A.D.2d 719; Matter of Walker v. Travis, 252 A.D.2d 360, 362; Matter of Garcia v. New York State Div. of Parole, 239 A.D.2d 235).
KRAUSMAN, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, TOWNES and RIVERA, JJ., concur.