Motion for Writ in John Platten v. Darryl C Towns Chairman of the New York State Board of Parole| Trellis.Law

On November 27, 2023 a Exhibit,Appendix was filed involving a dispute between John Platten, and Darryl C Towns Chairman Of The New York State Board Of Parole, for Special Proceedings - CPLR Article 78 in the District Court of Albany County.

Preview
FILED: ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 11/27/2023 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 911395-23
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2023

EXHIBIT 22
Unpublished Decisions Cited
FILED: ALBANY
DUTCHESS
COUNTY
COUNTY
CLERK
CLERK
11/27/2023
06/28/2023
05:15
11:15
PMAM INDEX
INDEXNO.
NO.2023-50416
911395-23
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23
28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2023
06/26/2023

To commence the 3D-day
statutory time period for appeals
as of right (CPLR 5513 [a]), you
are advised to serve a copy ofthis
order, with notice of entry, upon
all parties.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
------------------------------------------------------------_._----------)(
In the Matter of DECISION & ORDER

PETER CLANCY, Index No. 2023-50416
Petitioner,
-against-

Tina M. Stanford, Chair of the
New York State Board of Parole,
Respondent.

------------------------c-----------------------------------------------)(
ACKER, J.S.C.
The Court considered the following papers on the application of Petitioner Peter Clancy

("Petitioner") pursuant to CPLR Article 78 challenging Respondent's denial of his release to parole

superviSIOn:

Notice of Petition-Verified Petition-Exhibits A-E NYSCEF Doc. #s 1-7
Answer and Return-Exhibits 1-121 ••••••••••••.••.••.••.••.•••••••.••••.••••••••••• NYSCEF Doc. #s 11-26
Reply Affirmation NYSCEF Doc. #27

Petitioner commenced the instant proceeding seeking an Order vacating May 10, 2022

Decision of the Parole Board which denied his release. He further seeks a de novo interview

before Commissioners that did not sit on the May 2022 Board.

Petitioner is currently incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional Facility, serving an

indeterminate sentence of 20 years to life upon his guilty plea in 2004 to Murder in the Second

1 The Court also reviewed, in camera; the confidential documents submitted by Respondents as Exhibits 2 and 12
(entire exhibits) and portions of Exhibits 3 and 10.

1 of 9
FILED: ALBANY
DUTCHESS
COUNTY
COUNTY
CLERK
CLERK
11/27/2023
06/28/2023
05:15
11:15
PMAM INDEX
INDEXNO.
NO.2023-50416
911395-23
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23
28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2023
06/26/2023

Degree, Burglary in the first degree and Aggravated Criminal Contempt. On September 9, 2002,

Petitioner stabbed his estranged wife to death in their marital home, in front of two of their

children. He remained at the scene and ultimately pled guilty. He was sentenced to an aggregate

sentence of 20 years to life.

The instant application was brought as a result of the Parole Board's May 10,2022

parole release denial. Petitioner timely filed an administrative appeal and the denial was
,
affirmed on Februaryl, 2023. This was Petitioner's second appearance before the Parole Board.

Petitioner maintains that the Board's Decision should be vacated and a de novo interview

be ordered for the following reasons: (I) the Board based its decision on the circumstances ofthe

offense; (2) the reasons given for the denial were not supported by the record and (3) there was

not an adequate explanation for disregarding Petitioner's low COMPAS risk scores.

It is well settled that judicial review of a determination ofthe Parole Board is narrowly

circumscribed. Campbell v. Stanford, 173 AD3d 1012, 1015 [~d Dept. 2019], leave to appeal

dismissed, 35 NY3d 963 [2020]. A Parole Board determination to deny eariy release may only

be set aside where it evinces "irrationality bordering on impropriety." Id. Although the Parole

Board is required to consider the relevant statutory factors as identified in Executive Law 9259-

i(2)( c)(A), it is not required to address each factor in its decision or accord all the factors equal

weight. Id. "Whether the Parole Board considered the proper factors and followed the proper

guidelines should be assessed.based on the written determination evaluated in the context of the

parole interview transcript." Id.

New York Executive Law 9259-i(2)(c)(A) provides that:

[d]iscretionary release on parole shall not be granted merely as a reward for good
conduct or efficient performance of duties while confined but after considering if
there is a reasonable probability that, if such inmate is released, he will live and
remain at liberty without violating the law, and that his release is not incompatible

2 of 9
FILED: ALBANY
DUTCHESS
COUNTY
COUNTY
CLERK
CLERK
11/27/2023
06/28/2023
05:15
11:15
PMAM INDEX
INDEXNO.
NO.2023-50416
911395-23
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23
28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2023
06/26/2023

with the welfare of society and will not so deprecate the seriousness of his crime
as to undermine respect for law.

Further, pursuant to New York Executive Law g259-i(2)(c)(A)(i)-(viii), and as relevant to

the circumstances herein, the Parole Board is required to consider the following in making a

parole decision: the inmate's institutional record including program goals and accomplishments,

academic achievements, therapy and interactions with staff and inmates; release plans including

community resources, employment, education and training and support services available to the

inmate, any current or prior statement made to the board by the crime victim or the victim's

representative, the seriousness of the offense with due consideration to the type of sentence,

length of sentence and recommendations of the sentencing court and the district attorney, the

pre-sentence probation report as well as consideration of any mitigating and aggravating factors,

and activities following arrest prior to confinement.

"If parole is not granted upon such review, the inmate shall be informed in writing

within two weeks of such appearance of the factors and reasons for such denial of parole. Such

reasons shall be given iIi detail and not in conclusory terms." Executive Law g259-i(2)(a).

Petitioner's May 10, 2022 Interview and Respondent's Decision

The transcript of Petitioner's parole interview is annexed to the Petition as Exhibit A and
"-

to the Answer and Return as Exhibit 4 (hereinafter referred to as "Interview Transcript"). The

Board's Decision denying parole is contained at pages 37-39 of the InterView Transcript

(hereinafter referred to as "Decision").2

In reviewing the Decision in the context of the Interview Transcript, for the reasons

stated herein, the Court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated that the Board's determination to

2 Respondent also provides a separate "Parole Board Release Decision'Notice" as Exhibit 5 that contains virtually
the same content as the transcript but is dated May 23, 2022.
3

3 of 9
FILED: ALBANY
DUTCHESS
COUNTY
COUNTY
CLERK
CLERK
11/27/2023
06/28/2023
05:15
11:15
PMAM INDEX
INDEXNO.
NO.2023-50416
911395-23
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23
28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2023
06/26/2023

"deny him release evinces irrationality bordering on impropriety. "While the seriousness of the

underlying offense remains acutely relevant in determining whether the petitioner should be

released on parole, the record supports the petitioner's contention that the Parole Board failed to

take other relevant statutory factors into account." Mitchell v. New York State Div. of Parole, 58

AD3d 742, 743 [2d Dept. 2009].

Here, each of the reasons the Board proffered in its Decision for denying parole center on

the seriousness of the underlying offense. In fact, the Decision commences with a statement that

"the Panel is led to conclude that if released at this time [sic 1 would so deprecate the serious

nature of the crime as to undermine respect for the law.'"

First, the Board acknowledged Petitioner's"low COMPAS scores,3 but found that these

scores "fail to outweigh the depravity of the instant offense, or mitigate the atrocious

demonstration of anger and rage, nor lessen the long term impact upon yoUr family and

specifically your children."

The Board next determined that Petitioner's

stated remorse is self-serving. Given your life's professional and academic
accomplishment, you are mindful of the benefit of remorseful sentiment,
However, the Panel concurs said statements appeared less than genuine. During
the interview, in response to questions specifically about you, you would pivot to "
discuss your helping and volunteer efforts for others. This was a deliberate and
repeated method whereby you evaded discussing your rage and your anger toward
your victims.

While the Board couched this statement as indicia of lack of remorse, its focus remains on .the

seriousness of the underlying offense. In any event, as discussed below, the Board's conclusio"n

as to Petitioner's lack of remorse is not supported by the record.

3 A review of the COMPAS Risk Assessment annexed to lhe Petition as Exhibit B "confirms that Petitioner received
the lowest possible score (" 1") in all 12 categories.
4

4 of 9
FILED: ALBANY
DUTCHESS
COUNTY
COUNTY
CLERK
CLERK
11/27/2023
06/28/2023
05:15
11:15
PMAM INDEX
INDEXNO.
NO.2023-50416
911395-23
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23
28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2023
06/26/2023

The Board was also "persuaded against" Petitioner's release by the "strong language"

featured throughout "official opposition" to his release and'the sentencing minutes,4 The Board'

concluded that Petitioner was "symbolic of the vicious death" of his wife and encouraged him to

"take time to deeply consider [his] behavior pre, during and post the instant offense identifYing

all [his] victims and the depth of the harm [he] caused."

The Interview Transcript reveals further instances of the Board's attention on the

underlying crime, to wit: Petitioner's relationship with his estranged wife, the events which lead

to the murder, Petitioner's state of mind, his failure to seek psychiatric help before the crime and
"
the fact that the murder was witnessed by two of his children, when the other two children were

also present in the house. The Board also questioned Petitioner extensively about why he speaks

about helping others but not about what caused him to go from "0-1 00" when he killed his wife.

While the Decision of the, Board states that it considered the required statutory factors, it,

does so in a conclusory manner. For example, the Decision "notes" that Petitioner had

"amassed" two Tier II infractions both for contraband5 in 2009 and 2009, for which he served

keeplock. Yet the Board fails to acknowledge that these were the only disciplinary infractions

that Petitioner received during his nearly 20 year incarceration. The Board fleetingly mentions

that Petitioner had completed all required programming, including Aggression Replacement

Training and had obtained his Masters in Professional Studies in June 2019 with a 3.98 GPA.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the Board's "determination to deny parole

release to the petitioner appears to have been solely based on the seriousness of the crimes he

4 The only official opposition to Petitioner's release in the record is a 2021 letter from the Westchester County
District Attorney's Office which exclusively spoke of the nallire of the crime and its impact on the victim's family.
Similarly, the sentencing minutes detailed the nature of Petitioner's crime, victim impact statements and letters and
Petitioner's own statement.
5 The Petition explains that these iwo tickets were for the re-use of a single postage stamp and for trying to send'

letters to two men who had been transferred.
5

5 of 9
FILED: ALBANY
DUTCHESS
COUNTY
COUNTY
CLERK
CLERK
11/27/2023
06/28/2023
05:15
11:15
PMAM INDEX
INDEXNO.
NO.2023-50416
911395-23
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23
28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2023
06/26/2023

committed. We find such analysis, or lack thereof, to be incompatible with the Parole Board's

duty." Rivera v. Stanford, 172 AD3d 872, 874 [2d Dept. 2019]. In making this determination,

the Court is persuaded by the analysis of the First Department in Matter of Rossakis v; New York

State Ed of Parole, 146 AD3d 22, 27 [151 Dept. 2016], a case where the facts closely mirror the

instant case. There, the petitioner had also been incarcerated for 20 years for the murder of her

husband and had similarly obtained educational degrees and successfully completed all required

programs. She also scored the best scores possible on her COMPAS evaluation. The First

Department held that "[b lased on the record before us, we conclude that the motion court

,
correctly determined thatthe Board acted with an irrationality bordering on impropriety in

denying petitioner parole. The Board focused exclusively on the seriousness of petitioner's

c:onviction andthe decedent's family's victim impact statements ... without giving genuine

. consideration to petitioner's remorse, Institutional achievements, release plan, and her lack of any.

prior violent criminal history." Id. at 27.

As such, "notwithstanding the seriousness of the underlying offense, the Parole Board's

'determination to deny the petitioner release on parole evinced irrationality bordering on

impropriety' [citations omitted]''' Matter of Coleman v. New York State Dep't ofCorr. & Cmty.

Supervision, 157 AD3d 672,673 [2d Dept. 2018]; see also Matter of Ferrante v. Stanford, 172

AD3d 31, 37 [2d Dept. 2019] ("the Board may not deny an inm:ate parole based solely on the

seriousness of the offense."); see also Matter of Perfetto v. Evans, 112 AD3d 640, 641 [2d Dept.

2013] ("Although the written determination of the New York State Board of Parole (hereinafter

the Parole Board) mentioned the petitioner's institutional record, it is clear that the Parole Board

denied the petitioner's request to be released on parole solely on the basis of the seriousness of

the offense."); Matter of Ramirez v. Evans, 118 AD3d 707 [2d Dept. 2014].

6 of 9
FILED: ALBANY
DUTCHESS
COUNTY
COUNTY
CLERK
CLERK
11/27/2023
06/28/2023
05:15
11:15
PMAM INDEX
INDEXNO.
NO.2023-50416
911395-23
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23
28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2023
06/26/2023

There is another basis to vacate the Board's decision; the record does not support the

Board's finding that Petitioner's remorse was "self-serving" and "less than genuine.': While an

incarcerated individual's remorse and insight into the offense are relevant considerations for the

Board (Matter of Payne v. Stanford, 173 AD3d 1577, 1578 [3d Dept. 2019]), these factors are

largely relevant in assessing whether that individual presents a danger to the community, which

was not an issue raised by the Board here.

Contrary to the Board's conclusion, the record contains extensive evidence as to the

depth of Petitioner's remorse. During the Interview, the Commissioner noted that Petitioner

looked distraught and Petitioner responded that

the shame and the distress that I cause on anyone who comes into my life in any
. way and knowing that I'm'the person who committed such a monstrous act that
night, with such terrible consequences for not just my wife and our kids but her
mother, her sister, a lot of people who loved her, my own family who loved her,
she was like a sister to my sisters, like a big sister to my youngest brother Pat, and
I did all of that. Transcript, p. 12.

He further stated that

I was a failure and because I failed as a person I ruined all of these lives. I don't
think I've ever underestimated the impact I've had.on all of these victims, starting
with Debbie, and the terror she must have experienced th'at night and our'children
in the room and the other children in the bed and everyone since then, her mother,
her sister, everyone. I caused so much damage there is nothing I co.uld ever do to
even begin to mitigate that damage. Transcript, p. 16.

In addition to Petitioner's own testimony and personal statement, the record also contains

numerous letters of support that speak to the level of Petitioner's remorse. A letter from Father

Paul Tolve states that he has known Petitioner for 19 years and described him as "one of the

most sincere and repentant detainees who I have ever counseled in my 23 years as a chaplain and

priest."6 Archbishop Anthony Biondi of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church of

6 Fr. Tolve further notes that in the.early days of his incarceration Petitioner" "suffered from depression and deep
remorse over his actions and the consequences of them on alllevels."
7

7 of 9
FILED: ALBANY
DUTCHESS
COUNTY
COUNTY
CLERK
CLERK
11/27/2023
06/28/2023
05:15
11:15
PMAM INDEX
INDEXNO.
NO.2023-50416
911395-23
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23
28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2023
06/26/2023

America has been in contact with Petitioner since he entered the correctional system and stated

that Petitioner has shown "great remorse" in his conversations. Petitioner's defense attorney,

Andrew Rubin, also submitted a letter in which he noted that the. first time he met Petitioner and

continuing throughout his representation, Petitioner "expressed enormous, sincere remorse for

his crime, the death of his wife and the effect that his acts had on his children and [his wife's]

family."

Perhaps most significant, and seemingly ignored by the Board, is the fact that Petitioner

has re-established relationships with his wife's mother, Joan DiNapoli, and two of his children,

Peter and James, all of whom submitted letters in support of his release. In a September IS,

2021 letter, Mrs. DiNapoli stated that when she spoke to Petitioner on the phone in 2008 "[h]e

was so remorseful for what he had done, it broke my heart."7

Other than appearing to be dissatisfied with the manner in which Petitioner answered

their questions during the Interview, the record before the Board fails to demonstrate that

Petitioner had limited remorse and/or insight into his crime. C! Pulliam v. Bd. 0/ Parole - Dep't

a/Carr. & Cmty. Supervision, 197 AD3d 149S, 1496 [3d Dept. 2021] ("Although petitioner

expressed remorse at the parole hearing, he stated that six months prior to the hearing he was not

even sure that he had committed the crime and he did not offer an explanation as to why he did

it."). In this case, Petitioner pled guilty to the crime, has consistently spoken about his remorse

and described the impetus behind why he killed his wife. After reviewing the record, the Court

finds that the Board's determination that Petitioner's remorse is self-serving and less than

genuine evinces irrationality bordering on impropriety. Matter a/Coleman, supra.

'Mrs. DiNapoli also submitted a letter to the Westchester Eounty District Attorney dated February 4, 2022 wherein .
she asked the District Attorney not oppose Petitioner's release and expressed disappointment that the District
Attorney's.office had sent a letter opposing his parole at his first appearance in November, 2021.
8
8 of 9
FILED: ALBANY
DUTCHESS
COUNTY
COUNTY
CLERK
CLERK
11/27/2023
06/28/2023
05:15
11:15
PMAM INDEX
INDEXNO.
NO.2023-50416
911395-23
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23
28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2023
06/26/2023

This Court does not intend to diminish the fact that Petitioner brutally killed his wife in

the presence of their young children. As the Petitioner himself acknowledged in the Interview, .

what he did went "beyond major league" horror. Nevertheless, it is this Court's responsibility to

ensure that Petitioner's application for parole release be appropriately evaluated pursuant to all

applicable laws and regulations.

The Court has considered the additional contentions of the parties not specifically

addressed herein. To the 'extent any relief requested by either party was not addressed by the

Court, it is hereby denied. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Petition is granted and the May 10, 2022 determination is annulled;

and it is hereby

ORDERED that the matter is remitted to Respondent for a de novo parole release

interview and review which complies with all applicable statutes and regulations; and it is further

ORDERED that the de novo interview shall be held before a panel consisting of members

who were not involved in the May 10, 2022.interview; and it is further

ORDERED that said interview is to be conducted within forty-five (45) days of the date

of this Court's Decision and Order, and a decision is to be issued within fifteen (15) days ofthe

date of such hearing.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order ofthe Court.
Dated: Poughkeepsie, New York
June 26, 2023
aLj--~

To: All Counsel via NYSCEF

9 of 9
FILED: ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 11/27/2023 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 911395-23
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2023

Fordham Law School
FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History

Decisions in Art. 78 Proceedings Article 78 Litigation Documents

November 2019

Decision in Art. 78 proceeding - Goode, Timothy (2013-09-16)

Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/pdd

Recommended Citation
"Decision in Art. 78 proceeding - Goode, Timothy (2013-09-16)" (2019). Parole Information Project
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/pdd/49

This Parole Document is brought to you for free and open access by the Article 78 Litigation Documents at FLASH:
The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Decisions in Art. 78
Proceedings by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For
more information, please contact tmelnick@law.fordham.edu.
FILED: ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 11/27/2023 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 911395-23
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2023

STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT COUNT,Y OF ALBANY

In The Matter of TIMOTHY GOODE,
Petitioner,
-against-

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF PAROLE,
Respondent,
For A Judgment Pursuant to Article 78
of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

Supreme Court Albany County Article 78 Tenn
Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr., Supreme Court Justice Presiding
RJI # Ol-13-ST4719 Index No. 2542-13

Appearances: Timothy Goode
Inmate No. 91-A-9536
Petitioner, Pro Se
Otisville Correctional Facility
57 Sanitorium Avenue
P.O. Box 8
'· Otisville, NY 10963-2825

Eric T. Schneiderman
Attorney General
State of New York
Attorney For Respondent
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
(Keith Muse,
Assistant Attorney General
of Counsel)

DECISION/ORDER/JUDGMENT

George B. Ceresia, Jr., Justice

The petitioner: an inmate at Otisville Correctional Fa~.ility, has commenced the instant

CPLR Article 78 proceeding to review a detennination ofrespondent dated October 18, 2011
FILED: ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 11/27/2023 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 911395-23
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2023

to deny petitioner discretionary release on parole. Petitioner is serving an aggregate term of

fifteen years to life upon conviction of attempted murder f st degree, criminal possession of

a weapon, 2nd degree, burglary 1st degree and criminal use of a firearm. Among the many

arguments set forth in the petition, petitioner indic~tes that he has an exemplary institutional

recorq. He indicates that the has received certificates for. the following institutional

programs: printing, optical, food management, nurses's a}d inmate liaison committee clerk,

H.I.V. Counselor, Aggression Replacement Training and certifications for Blood Spill

Cleanup, General Business ~nd Substance Abuse Aware~ress. He maintains that in 23 years

of incarceration he has demonstrated that he poses no thr~1t to society. He cites letters of

support from four correction officers and an Imam. ..He. alleges that the Parole Board's

decision was arbitrary and capricious, irrational borderi 1:;g on impropriety, and made in

violation of lawful procedure. He asserts that the Parole Board failed "to administer a

COMPAS risk and needs assessment" as required under Executive Law§ 259-c (4). The

foregoing, in his view, resulted in the violation of his du~ process rights. The petitioner

contends that the Parole Board considered erroneous information in his prison record with

regard to jail time credit. He indicates that his 2011 iruna!~ status report recites that his jail

time was 248 months; his 2005 inmate status recites 189 months jail time credit; and his

2009 inmate status report recites 224 months ofjail time credit; and that these figures do not

reconcile. He claims that his inmate record recites that he was convicted of more felonies

than is the case. In his view, parole was denied based solely upon the seriousness of the

instant offenses, without consideration of other statutor; fo.ctors. He also advances the

following arguments: that the Parole Board improperly eonsidered his criminal history in

2
FILED: ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 11/27/2023 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 911395-23
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2023

excess often years in the past; failed to consider his suc·ces};ful completion of work release;

failed to consider the appropriate guideline range (see 9 NYCAA 8001.3. [c ]); that the District

Attorney's statements are not confidential under the Executive Law; that the Parole Board

determination was not detailed.

The reasons for the respondent's determination to dfJIY petitioner release on parole

are set forth as follows:

"Parole denied; next appearance October 2_013.

"Following careful review and deliberation of your record and
interview, this Panel concluded that discretionary release is not
presently warranted due to concern for the public safety and
welfare. The following factors were prop~rly weighed and
considered: your iristant offense, in Nassau County, in February
of 1991, involved your burglary· of a residence, wherein you
exchanged gun fire with the police. Your criminal history
indicates you were on parole at the time. about three months
.from a 1987 burglary secon.d. Your institutional programing
indicates progress and achievement, which is noted to your
credit. Your disciplinary record reflects two· Tier II reports.
You have approximately six felonies. This is your second state
bid. Based on all required factors in the ·me considered, your
discretionary release at this time \J\i-OUld thus not be compatible
with the welfare of society at large and woulg tend to deprecate
the seriousness ofthe instant offenses and undermine respect for
the law.

Parole Release decisions are discretionary and, if made pursuant to statutory

requirements, not reviewable (Matter of Campbell v Evans, 106 AD3d 1363, 1363-1364 [3d

Dept., 2013]; Matter of De La Cruz v Travis, 10 AD3d 789 [3d Dept., 2004]; Matter of

Collado v New York State Division of Parole, 287 · AD2d 921 (3d Dept., 2001]).

Furthermore, only a "showing of irrationality bordering on.impropriety" on the part of the

Parole Board has been found to necessitate judicial intervention (see Matter of Silmon v

3
FILED: ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 11/27/2023 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 911395-23
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2023

Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 476 (2000], quoting Matter of Russo i' . New York StateBd. of Parole,

50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]; see also Matter of Graziano v Evans, 90 AD3d 1367, 1369 [3d

Dept., 2011]). In the absence of the above, there is no basis upon which to disturb the

discretionary determination made by the Parole Board (see Matter of Perez v. New York

State of Division o f Parole, 294 AD2d 726 [3rd Dept., 2002]).

As relevant here, the 2011 amendments to the ExeC:µtive Law (see L 2011 ch 62, Part

C, Subpart A,§ 38-b, et seq.) made two changes with respect to how parole determinations

are made. Ffrst, Executive Law § 259-c was revised to eliminate mention of Division of

Parole guidelines (see 9 NYCRR 8001.3 [a]), in favor of requiring the Division of Parole to

rely upon criteria that would place greater emphasis on aJ!Ji,
...

ENTER

Dated: September /, . , 2013
Troy~ New York eorge B. Ceresia, Jr.
Supreme qourt Justice
FILED: ALBANY COUNTY CLERK 11/27/2023 05:15 PM INDEX NO. 911395-23
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2023

Fordham Law School
FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History

Decisions in Art. 78 Proceedings Article 78 Litigation Documents

July 2023

Decision in Art. 78 proceeding - Campbell, Jarvis (2023-03-08)

Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/pdd

Recommended Citation
"Decision in Art. 78 proceeding - Campbell, Jarvis (2023-03-08)" (2023). Parole Information Project
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/pdd/415

This Parole Document is brought to you for free and open access by the Article 78 Litigation Documents at FLASH:
The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Decisions in Art. 78
Proceedings by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For
more information, please contact tmelnick@law.fordham.edu.
FILED: ALBANY
DUTCHESS
COUNTY
COUNTY
CLERK
CLERK
11/27/2023
03/08/2023
05:15
02:13
PMPM INDEX
INDEXNO.
NO.2022-53197
911395-23
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23
31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2023
03/08/2023

To commence the 30-day
statutory time period for appeals
as of right (CPLR 55 13[a]), you
are advised to serve a copy of this
order, with notice of entry, upon
all parties.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
-------------------------------------------------------------x
In the Matter of the Application of

JARVIS CAMPBELL, DECISION AND ORDER
Petitioner,
-against- Index No.: 2022-53197

THE NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF PAROLE,

For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the
Civil Practice Law and Rules.
Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------x
ACKER, J.S.c.

The Court considered the following on Petitioner's application pursuant to CPLR Article

78 challenging Respondent's denial of his release to parole supervision:

Notice of Petition-Verified Petition-Affirmation ofisaac B.
Zaur, Esq.- Exhibits 1-4 : NySCEF Doc. #s 1-7
Answer and Return-Exhibits I-13' NySCEF Doc. #s 12-27
Memorandum of Law in Reply NySCEF Doc. #30

Petitioner Jarvis Campbell ("Petitioner") commenced the instant proceeding seeking an

Order annulling the Parole Board's January 26, 2022 decision denying his release to parole

supervision and directing Respondents to hold a de novo parole interview.

At the time of Petitioner's appearance before the Parole Board, he was incarcerated at

Fishkill Correctional Facility, serving a sentence of21 years to life as a result of three separate

I The Court also reviewed, in camera, the confidential documents submitted by Respondents as Exhibit 1 (entire
exhibit) and portions of Exhibits 3 and 10.

1 of 6
FILED: ALBANY
DUTCHESS
COUNTY
COUNTY
CLERK
CLERK
11/27/2023
03/08/2023
05:15
02:13
PMPM INDEX
INDEXNO.
NO.2022-53197
911395-23
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23
31 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/27/2023
03/08/2023

convictions, to wit: (I) Murder in the Second Degree, for which he was sentenced to a term of

21 years to life; (2) Possession of Prison Contraband in the First Degree, with a sentence of 2-

. 4 years, running concurrently with his prior sentence; and (3) Robbery in the 3'd Degree, to

which he was sentenced as a third felony offender to a term of 3-6 years, which ran concurrently

with his prior sentences.

Petitioner's murder conviction arises from an incident that occurred on November 13,

2000. According to Petitioner, after his brother was assaulted ahd robbed, he went to find the

individuals who were involved in the attack. He approached a group and, when they ran, he

shot in their direction, hitting Demetrius Wright He saw Wright fall and he continued to shoot

in the direction

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

November 27, 2023

Case Filing Date

November 27, 2023

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Exhibit,Appendix: John Platten v. Darryl C Towns Chairman of the New York State Board of Parole

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties