AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
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

In the Matter of JOHN P. DAVIS, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE et al., Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is well established that the Division of Parole's release decisions are discretionary, and if made in accordance with the statutory requirements, such determinations are not subject to judicial review (see, Matter of Ristau v Hammock, 103 A.D.2d 944; Matter of Harden v New York State Bd. of Parole, 103 A.D.2d 777; Matter of Ganci v Hammock, 99 A.D.2d 546, 548; Matter of Delman v New York State Bd. of Parole, 93 A.D.2d 888; Matter of Abrams v New York State Bd. of Parole, 88 A.D.2d 951). The reasons set forth by the Division of Parole for denying parole release to petitioner (the serious nature of the offense, the circumstances surrounding his conviction, the fact that petitioner was a persistent and serious past offender, the fact that at the time of the offense petitioner had been on parole from a sentence for a prior offense for only eight months, and the fact that petitioner had previously violated parole conditions) were all supported by the record and satisfied its obligation under the statute (Executive Law § 259-i [a]; [2] [c]; Matter of Harden v New York State Bd. of Parole, supra; Matter of Delman v New York State Bd. of Parole, supra: Matter of Lynch v New York State Div. of Parole, 82 A.D.2d 1012; Matter of Qafa v Hammock, 80 A.D.2d 952; Matter of Shapiro v Hammock, 67 A.D.2d 713). Petitioner's claim that the Division of Parole failed to consider his institutional record and release plans failed to overcome the presumption that it properly complied with its statutory duty (see, People ex rel. Herbert v New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 A.D.2d 128, 133; Matter of Mackall v New York State Bd. of Parole, 91 A.D.2d 1023; Matter of Maciag v Hammock, 88 A.D.2d 1106; Matter of Qafa v Hammock, supra). "The fact that the board did not discuss each factor with petitioner at [his] hearing does not constitute convincing evidence that it did not consider them" (Matter of Mackall v New York State Bd. of Parole, supra, at p 1024). Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF DAVIS v. N.Y. STATE DIV. OF PAROLE
(Oct 15, 1985)