Prout v. Dennison
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Dissent
Carpinello, J. (dissenting).
We respectfully dissent. We cannot subscribe to the majority’s finding that it is impossible to give meaning to the Board of Parole’s decision denying petitioner parole. Nor do we find that the Board improperly applied the statutory standards such that a de novo parole hearing is warranted. Accordingly, we would reverse Supreme Court’s judgment.
We begin by noting that there is no requirement that the Board discuss all of the statutory factors in its written determination, as long the “appropriate factors [are] discussed and considered” at the parole hearing (Matter…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited13 opinions
- MATTER OF SILMON v. TravisNew York Court of Appeals · 2000
- MATTER OF KING v. New York State Div. of ParoleNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
- Wan Zhang v. TravisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- People ex rel. Herbert v. New York State Board of ParoleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- De La Cruz v. TravisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.