Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Victor DORATO, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE et al., Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kane, J.), entered November 4, 1998 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parole.
Petitioner was convicted upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of sexual abuse in the first degree and sodomy in the second degree and is serving concurrent prison terms of 2 to 6 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively. The Board of Parole denied petitioner's application for parole. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and we affirm. The record reveals that in denying petitioner's parole release, the Board considered the relevant factors including the nature of his crimes, his institutional record, including his commendable behavior as well as his limited participation in counseling to address his own sexual abuse as a child, his receipt of an Earned Eligibility Certificate, his lack of a prior criminal record and his release plans (see, Executive Law § 259-i[2][c] ). In view of the foregoing, we conclude that Supreme Court appropriately dismissed the petition (see, Matter of Keindl v. Russi, 225 A.D.2d 988, 639 N.Y.S.2d 535; Matter of Walker v. New York State Div. of Parole, 203 A.D.2d 757, 610 N.Y.S.2d 397). The fact that petitioner received a certificate of earned eligibility does not preclude the Board from concluding, as it rationally did here, that petitioner could not live and remain at liberty without violating the law and that his release would be incompatible with the welfare of society (see, Correction Law § 805; Matter of Thomas v. Travis, 257 A.D.2d 812, 682 N.Y.S.2d 639, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 804, 689 N.Y.S.2d 17, 711 N.E.2d 202). Finally, we find no merit to petitioner's contention that the parole interview was improperly conducted. Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be unpersuasive.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: September 16, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)