From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Durio v. New York State Division, Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 29, 2004
3 A.D.3d 816 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

93903.

Decided and Entered: January 29, 2004.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kavanagh, J.), entered March 27, 2003 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parole release.

Lenny Durio, Comstock, appellant pro se.

Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Since the September 2001 determination giving rise to this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner has reappeared before the Board of Parole and his request for parole release has again been denied. Given petitioner's subsequent appearance before the Board, the instant matter is now moot and the appeal must be dismissed (see Matter of Dunavin v. Travis, 308 A.D.2d 641). Furthermore, we are unpersuaded by petitioner's assertion that this matter presents an exception to the mootness doctrine (see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714-715).

We take this opportunity to observe that where appropriate the Board may give considerable weight to, or place particular emphasis on, the circumstances of the crimes for which a petitioner is incarcerated, as well as a petitioner's criminal history, together with the other statutory factors, in determining whether the individual "will live and remain at liberty without violating the law," whether his or her "release is not incompatible with the welfare of society," and whether release will "deprecate the seriousness of [the] crime as to undermine respect for [the] law" (Executive Law § 259-i [c] [A]; see Matter of Silmon v. Travis, 95 N.Y.2d 470, 476-477; Matter of Bramble v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 307 A.D.2d 463; Matter of Lue-Shing v. Pataki, 301 A.D.2d 827, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 511).

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.


Summaries of

In re Durio v. New York State Division, Parole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 29, 2004
3 A.D.3d 816 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In re Durio v. New York State Division, Parole

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF LENNY DURIO, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jan 29, 2004

Citations

3 A.D.3d 816 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
770 N.Y.S.2d 897

Citing Cases

Winkler v. Evans

Nor must the parole board recite the precise statutory language set forth in the first sentence of Executive…

Wiley v. State Dep't of Corr.

Nor must the parole board recite the precise statutory language set forth in the first sentence of Executive…