| Matter of Heier v Department of Corr. & Community Supervision |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00565 [113 AD3d 1018] |
| January 30, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| In the Matter of Jonathan W. Heier, Petitioner, v Department of Corrections and Community Supervision et al., Respondents. |
—[*1]
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Zainab A. Chaudhry of counsel),
for respondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Board of Parole which revoked petitioner's parole.
Petitioner was convicted of assault in the second degree and sentenced in 2009 to a prison term of two years followed by three years of postrelease supervision. Petitioner was released on parole supervision in 2010 and, because the underlying conviction stemmed from a domestic incident, a special condition of his release included that he immediately notify his parole officer of any involvement in an intimate relationship. Thereafter, petitioner was charged with multiple violations of failing to report a relationship and lying to his parole officers. Following a final revocation hearing, all but two of the charges were sustained. As a result, petitioner's release was revoked and a hold to petitioner's maximum expiration date was imposed. After exhausting his administrative remedies, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.
We confirm. Revocation of parole will be confirmed where procedural requirements were followed and evidence, if credited, exists to support the determination (see Matter of Toomer v Warden of Adirondack Corr. Facility, 97 AD3d 868, 868 [2012]; Matter of Davis v New York State Bd. of Parole, 81 AD3d 1020, 1021 [2011]). Here, the marriage license, [*2]certificate of marriage and testimony of petitioner's parole officer that petitioner never informed him of the relationship provide ample support for the determination. The fact that petitioner and his wife deny that any intimate relationship existed until days before their marriage presented a credibility issue to be resolved by the Administrative Law Judge (see Matter of Davis v New York State Bd. of Parole, 81 AD3d at 1021). Furthermore, we are unpersuaded by petitioner's assertion that the imposition of a hold until the maximum expiration of his sentence is harsh and excessive.
Peters, P.J., Rose, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.