Esquilin v. N.Y. State Bd. of Parole

144 A.D.3d 797

40 N.Y.S.3d 279 (Mem)

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 07320

In the Matter of Adolfo ESQUILIN, appellant,

v.NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF PAROLE, respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Nov. 9, 2016.

Randolph Z. Volkell, Merrick, NY, for appellant.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, NY (Steven C. Wu and Seth M. Rokosky of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Board of Parole, dated January 28, 2015, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's application to be released to parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bartlett, J.), dated January 7, 2016, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Judicial review of the determinations of the New York State Division of Parole is narrowly circumscribed (see Matter of Briguglio v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 24 N.Y.2d 21, 29, 298 N.Y.S.2d 704, 246 N.E.2d 512 ; Matter of Hardwick v. Dennison, 43 A.D.3d 406, 407, 840 N.Y.S.2d 425 ; Matter of Rhoden v. New York State Div. of Parole, 270 A.D.2d 550, 551, 704 N.Y.S.2d 521 ). Moreover, while the Parole Board is required to consider the relevant statutory factors (see Executive Law § 259–i[2][c][A] ) in reaching its determination, it is not required to address each factor in its decision or accord all of the factors equal weight (see Matter of LeGeros v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 139 A.D.3d 1068, 1069, 30 N.Y.S.3d 834 ; Matter of Thomches v. Evans, 108 A.D.3d 724, 968 N.Y.S.2d 888 ; Matter of Samuel v. Alexander, 69 A.D.3d 861, 862, 892 N.Y.S.2d 557 ). In this case, the hearing record and the text of the respondent's determination establish that the requisite factors were properly considered.

The petitioner's remaining contention is without merit.

Since the petitioner failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating that the challenged determination was irrational, the Supreme Court correctly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding (see Matter of Marszalek v. Stanford, 124 A.D.3d 665, 997 N.Y.S.2d 910 ; Matter of Thomches v. Evans, 108 A.D.3d at 724–725, 968 N.Y.S.2d 888 ; Matter of Samuel v. Alexander, 69 A.D.3d at 862, 892 N.Y.S.2d 557 ; Matter of Hardwick v. Dennison, 43 A.D.3d at 407, 840 N.Y.S.2d 425 ).

RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, ROMAN and LaSALLE, JJ., concur.