Skip to main content

IN RE: Laurel WARD (2006)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

IN RE: Laurel WARD, Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, Respondent.

Decided: February 23, 2006

Before:  CARDONA, P.J., PETERS, SPAIN, ROSE and KANE, JJ. Laurel Ward, Otisville, appellant pro se. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Frank K. Walsh of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McNamara, J.), entered June 30, 2005 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 his request for parole release.

Petitioner was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree after he struck his four-month-old son, causing his death.   He was sentenced to 8 to 25 years in prison.   In December 2003, he made a second appearance before the Board of Parole for release.   At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board denied him release and ordered him held until his next hearing.   After the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.   Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed the petition, resulting in this appeal.

 We affirm.   The Board's decision does not evidence “ ‘irrationality bordering on impropriety’ ” (Matter of Silmon v. Travis, 95 N.Y.2d 470, 476, 718 N.Y.S.2d 704, 741 N.E.2d 501 [2000], quoting Matter of Russo v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 N.Y.2d 69, 77, 427 N.Y.S.2d 982, 405 N.E.2d 225 [1980] ).   In making its determination, the Board need not articulate every factor it considered or give equal weight to each factor (see Matter of Zhang v. Travis, 10 A.D.3d 828, 829, 782 N.Y.S.2d 156 [2004] ).   Here, the Board placed emphasis upon petitioner's lack of remorse, but also considered other relevant statutory factors.   We also reject petitioner's claim that the Board's decision is the product of an executive policy against granting parole to violent felons (see Matter of Davis v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 17 A.D.3d 970, 970, 793 N.Y.S.2d 644 [2005] ).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

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.

Go to Learn About the Law
IN RE: Laurel WARD (2006)

Decided: February 23, 2006

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

Sign up

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.

Learn more about the law
Copied to clipboard