From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Bacon v. Hammock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 18, 1983
96 A.D.2d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

July 18, 1983


In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the State Board of Parole which, after a parole release hearing, denied petitioner his release on parole, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme court, Dutchess County (Rosenblatt, J.), dated June 3, 1982, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Upon this record, the factors enunciated by the board in its decision denying petitioner parole, namely, the nature and seriousness of the offenses of which he was convicted, constituted sufficient reason for such action (see, e.g., Matter of Shapiro v Hammock, 67 A.D.2d 713; Matter of Consilvio v New York State Bd. of Parole, 57 A.D.2d 955). Further, discretionary decisions of the Board of Parole are deemed to be judicial functions and are not reviewable if done in accordance with law (see Executive Law, § 259-i, subd 5; Matter of Briguglio v New York State Bd. of Parole, 24 N.Y.2d 21; Matter of Abrams v New York State Bd. of Parole, 88 A.D.2d 951; Matter of Shapiro v Hammock, supra). Brown, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Boyers, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Bacon v. Hammock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 18, 1983
96 A.D.2d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Matter of Bacon v. Hammock

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of KEVIN BACON, Appellant, v. EDWARD HAMMOCK, Respondent

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

Date published: Jul 18, 1983

Citations

96 A.D.2d 557 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Quartararo v. Catterson

Both are decisions which involve the officials' expertise, an application of law and an exercise of their…

People ex rel. Thomas v. Superintendent of Arthur Kill Correctional Facility

e, the petitioner failed to make a convincing showing that the Board relied upon incomplete and erroneous…