Majority
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Hard, J.), entered July 21, 2016 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s applications, in two proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78, to, among other things, review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.
We affirm. Petitioner challenges the dismissal of his petition requesting the removal of erroneous references to prior arrests in Florida in 1976 and Arizona in 1985 in the report prepared for his June 2015 parole hearing. We note, however, that a new parole board report was prepared in December 2016 that omits the references to those arrests. Accordingly, petitioner has received the relief he requested and this matter is now moot (see Matter of Smith v New York State Bd. of Parole, 121 AD3d 1466 , 1467 [2014]).
Turning to the Board’s denial of his request for parole release, such decisions are discretionary and will be upheld so long as the Board complied with the statutory requirements of Executive Law § 259-i (see Matter of Ward v New York State Div. of Parole, 144 AD3d 1375 , 1376 [2016]; Matter of Neal v Stanford, 131 AD3d 1320 , 1320 [2015]). Here, the Board considered the proper statutory factors, including the serious nature of petitioner’s crime and his criminal history, prison disciplinary record, program accomplishments and postrelease plan, as well as the COMPAS Risk and Needs Assessment instrument and the sentencing minutes (see Matter of Hill v New York State Bd. of Parole, 130 AD3d 1130 , 1130 [2015]; Matter of Borges v Stanford, 127 AD3d 1491 , 1491-1492 [2015]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Board also considered the order of deportation issued against him in rendering its decision. Such an order is not determinative, however, but is only one of the many factors that the Board was required to consider (see Matter of Lackwood v New York State Div. of Parole, 127 AD3d 1495 , 1495 [2015]; Matter of Borrell v New York State Div. of Parole, 123 AD3d 1206 , 1206-1207 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 901 [2015]). Further, the Board is not required to give each statutory factor equal weight and may, as it did here, place a greater emphasis on the seriousness of petitioner’s crime (see Matter of Feilzer v New York State Div. of Parole,
Peters, P.J., Garry, Lynch, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Cases cited
- Smith v. New York State Board of Parole 121 AD3d 1466 at 1467 p. 1393
- Ward v. New York State Division of Parole 144 AD3d 1375 at 1376 p. 1393
- Hill v. New York State Board of Parole 130 AD3d 1130 at 1130 p. 1393
- Borges v. Stanford 127 AD3d 1491 at 1491-1492 p. 1393
- Lackwood v. New York State Division of Parole 127 AD3d 1495 at 1495 p. 1393
- Borrell v. New York State Division of Parole 123 AD3d 1206 at 1206-1207 p. 1393
- Leung v. Evans 120 AD3d 1478 at 1479 p. 1394
- Sutherland v. Evans 82 AD3d 1428 at 1429 p. 1394
- Restivo v. New York State Board of Parole 70 AD3d 1096 at 1097 p. 1394
- Russo v. New York State Board of Parole 50 NY2d 69 at 77 p. 1394
- Silmon v. Travis 95 NY2d 470 at 476 p. 1394