Opinion
916 CA 16-01932.
06-30-2017
In the Matter of Charles PETERSON, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Tina STANFORD, Chairwoman, New York State Division of Parole, et al., Respondents–Respondents.
Charles Peterson, Petitioner–Appellant Pro Se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of Counsel), for Respondents–Respondents.
Charles Peterson, Petitioner–Appellant Pro Se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of Counsel), for Respondents–Respondents.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, DeJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination of the New York State Board of Parole (Board) denying his release to parole supervision. Contrary to petitioner's contention, there is no indication in the record that the Board relied on incorrect information concerning his criminal history in denying his request for parole release (see Matter of Boccadisi v. Stanford, 133 A.D.3d 1169, 1170–1171, 20 N.Y.S.3d 477 ; Matter of Rivers v. Evans, 119 A.D.3d 1188, 1188–1189, 989 N.Y.S.2d 400 ). Contrary to petitioner's further contention, Supreme Court properly denied the petition inasmuch as the Board considered the required statutory factors and adequately set forth its reasons for denying petitioner's application (see Matter of Siao–Pao v. Dennison, 11 N.Y.3d 777, 778, 866 N.Y.S.2d 602, 896 N.E.2d 87 ), and inasmuch as the Board's determination does not exhibit "irrationality bordering on impropriety" (Matter of Kenefick v. Sticht, 139 A.D.3d 1380, 1381, 31 N.Y.S.3d 367, lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 902, 2016 WL 4742517 ). Petitioner's additional contentions-that respondents lacked jurisdiction over him by virtue of improper procedures and that he was denied due process of law by the Board's failure to follow its statutory mandates-were not raised in his administrative appeal, and petitioner therefore has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to them (see Matter of Karlin v. Cully, 104 A.D.3d 1285, 1286, 960 N.Y.S.2d 827 ; Matter of Secore v. Mantello, 176 A.D.2d 1244, 1244, 576 N.Y.S.2d 473 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.