From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Joseph Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 18, 2010
73 A.D.3d 1067 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2009-08883.

May 18, 2010.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Board of Parole dated June 17, 2008, denying his application to be released on parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ritter, J), dated August 18, 2009, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Joseph Martinez, Warwick, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Marion R. Buchbinder of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Fisher, J.P., Balkin, Roman and Sgroi, JJ .


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

A parole determination may be set aside only when the determination to deny the petitioner release on parole evinced `irrationality bordering on impropriety' ( Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77; see Matter of Silmon v Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 476). The burden is on the petitioner to make a convincing demonstration of entitlement to such relief ( see Matter of Midgette v New York State Div. of Parole, 70 AD3d 1039, 1040; see Matter of Samuel v Alexander, 69 AD3d 861). The petitioner failed to meet his burden in this case.

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

In re Joseph Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 18, 2010
73 A.D.3d 1067 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

In re Joseph Martinez

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of JOSEPH MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF…

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

Date published: May 18, 2010

Citations

73 A.D.3d 1067 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 4394
899 N.Y.S.2d 900

Citing Cases

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

arole Board is not required to give equal weight to each statutory factor, nor is it required specifically to…

Banks v. Stanford

D.3d 691, 692, 40 N.Y.S.3d 501; Matter of Huntley v. Stanford, 134 A.D.3d 937, 20 N.Y.S.3d 902; Matter of…