AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
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
Attorney(S)
Judges

In the Matter of ESMER RHODEN, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner was sentenced to a prison term of 6 to 18 years following his conviction of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree. This conviction stemmed from petitioner's action in inflicting a fatal stab wound on his roommate during an argument. Petitioner was previously denied parole release in 1996. Petitioner's latest application for parole release was again denied and, following an administrative appeal, the Board of Parole's decision was affirmed. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the merits and this appeal followed.

We affirm. Initially, we find no abuse of discretion in Supreme Court's denial of petitioner's motion for a default judgment premised upon respondent's short delay in timely serving an answer (see, CPLR 7804 [e]). Turning to the merits, we conclude that the record discloses that the Board considered all relevant factors in denying petitioner's parole request, including petitioner's certificate of earned eligibility and positive accomplishments while incarcerated as well as the seriousness of the offense and his attempts to minimize his responsibility. Accordingly, judicial review of the Board's determination is precluded (see, Executive Law § 259-i Exec. [5]; see also, Matter of Anthony v. New York State Div. of Parole, 252 A.D.2d 704, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 812, cert denied 525 U.S. 1183). We have examined petitioner's remaining arguments and find them to be unpersuasive under the circumstances.

MERCURE, J.P., PETERS, CARPINELLO, GRAFFEO and MUGGLIN, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF RHODEN v. STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE
(Mar 2, 2000)