PRESENT: HONORABLE MARK H. DADD

Acting Supreme Court Justice

STATE OF NEW YORK

SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF WYOMING

________________________________________

In the Matter of the Application of

STANLEY WRIGHT, #92-A-8673,

Petitioner

v.

Index No. 19,053

BRION D. TRAVIS, Chairman, New York

State Division of Parole, Respondent

FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78 CPLR

_________________________________________

For the Petitioner

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL

AID BUREAU, INC.

Norman P. Effman, Director

14 Main Street

Attica, New York 14011

For the Respondent

ELIOT SPITZER, Attorney General

by Ann C. Williams

Assistant Attorney General

Statler Towers, Fourth Floor

107 Delaware Avenue

Buffalo, New York 14202



MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

By petition pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR verified on May 26, 2000, Stanley Wright seeks review of a parole release hearing conducted on August 11, 1999. Petitioner appeared with counsel assigned by an order to show cause dated June 5, 2000 and contended that he should be granted a de novo hearing. Respondent requests that the petition be denied upon the answer dated July 17, 2000 and the record of confidential information submitted to the Court.

The petition is without merit. The Board of Parole could cite the serious and violent conduct underlying the petitioner's conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree and his poor prison disciplinary record as sufficient grounds for denying release pursuant to Correction Law §805 (see Matter of Lippa v. New York State Division of Parole, 202 A.D.2d 928 [1994]; Matter of Walker v. Russi, 176 A.D.2d 1185 [1991], appeal dismissed 79 N.Y.2d 897; Matter of Salcedo v. Ross, 183 A.D.2d 771 [1992]; Matter of Scott v. Russi, 208 A.D.2d 931 [1994]; People ex rel Justice v. Russi, 226 A.D.2d 821 [1996]; Matter of Putland v. Herbert, 231 A.D.2d 893 [1996], motion for leave to appeal denied 89 N.Y.2d 806). The commissioners could also consider the petitioner's prior placement with the Division for Youth (see Matter of Maciag v. Hammock, 88 A.D.2d 1106 [1982]; Matter of Pina v. Hammock, 109 Misc.2d 980 [1981], affirmed 89 A.D.2d 799 [1982]; People v. Brunner, 182 A.D.2d 1123 [1992], leave to appeal denied 80 N.Y.2d 828). Furthermore, they had discretion to place greater weight on these factors than they placed upon his performance in institutional programs (see Matter of Ristau v. Hammock, 103 A.D.2d 944 [1984], motion for leave to appeal denied 63 N.Y.2d 608; Matter of Rentz v. Herbert, 206 A.D.2d 944 [1994], motion for leave to appeal denied 84 N.Y.2d 810). Thus, judicial intervention is precluded in this matter because the petitioner has failed to establish that the respondent's decision was made in violation of the law or not supported by the record and tainted by "irrationality bordering on impropriety" (see Matter of Russo v. New York State Division of Parole, 50 N.Y.2d 69, 77 [1980]; Matter of Despard v. Russi, 192 A.D.2d 1076 [1993], motion for leave to appeal denied 82 N.Y.2d 652).

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby

ORDERED that the petition is denied.

DATED: August 1, 2000

Warsaw, New York



Acting Supreme Court Justice



Memorandum and Judgment

Index No.19,053