SHAW v. MURRAY (2005)

 Contrary to the contention of petitioner, the determination of the New York State Board of Parole that he violated a condition of his parole by possessing an antique pistol is supported by substantial evidence.   The “conduct of a parolee which is less than criminal conduct may result in a revocation of parole where such conduct is proscribed by the conditions imposed by his parole” (People ex rel. Walker v. Hammock, 78 A.D.2d 369, 372-373, 435 N.Y.S.2d 410;  see also People ex rel. Maggio v. Casscles, 28 N.Y.2d 415, 418, 322 N.Y.S.2d 668, 271 N.E.2d 517).   Here, a condition of petitioner's parole proscribed petitioner from possessing “firearm[s] of any type,” and thus the determination that petitioner's possession of the pistol at issue violated that condition is supported by substantial evidence (see generally Matter of Fuller v. Berbary, 13 A.D.3d 1152, 787 N.Y.S.2d 532;  People ex rel. Fryer v. Beaver, 292 A.D.2d 876, 740 N.Y.S.2d 174).

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination be and the same hereby is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

MEMORANDUM: