MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner, who is currently serving consecutive prison sentences of 8 1/3 to 25 years for his convictions of manslaughter in the first degree and 2 to 4 years for attempted criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, was denied parole release based upon the violent nature and circumstances of his crimes, his criminal history and his resistance to community standards. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination and Supreme Court dismissed the petition. We affirm. Contrary to petitioner's contention, respondent Board of Parole considered the appropriate statutory factors in rendering its determination, placing emphasis on the seriousness of petitioner's crimes and his criminal history (see, Executive Law § 259-i). Respondent was not required to expressly discuss each fact considered (see, Matter of Rivera v. State of New York Executive Dept. Bd. of Parole, 268 A.D.2d 928). Moreover, we reject petitioner's contention that Executive Law § 259-i is unconstitutional (see, Matter of Jerrell v. Ibsen, 253 A.D.2d 917). In light of petitioner's failure to demonstrate that the determination was affected by irrationality bordering on impropriety, we find no reason to disturb the discretionary determination that petitioner was not an acceptable candidate for parole release (see,Matter of Gonzalez v. Travis, 275 A.D.2d 827, 713 N.Y.S.2d 299; Matter of Nelson v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 274 A.D.2d 719). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.