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: Isidro ABASCAL, Appellant, v. John MACZEK, as New York State Department of Correctional Services Temporary Release Program Reviewer, Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Canfield, J.), entered August 6, 2004 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Director of Temporary Release Programs denying petitioner's request for participation in the temporary work release program.
In 1997, petitioner pleaded guilty to the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and is currently serving a prison sentence of six years to life. After an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the denial of his application for participation in a temporary work release program. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and we affirm.
Participation in a temporary release program is a privilege, not a right (see Correction Law § 855[9] ), and our review of a determination denying an application to participate in such a program is limited to the consideration of whether the determination “violated any positive statutory requirement or denied a constitutional right of the inmate and whether [it] is affected by irrationality bordering on impropriety” (Matter of Gonzalez v. Wilson, 106 A.D.2d 386, 386-387, 482 N.Y.S.2d 302 [1984]; see Matter of Patterson v. Goord, 1 A.D.3d 845, 846, 767 N.Y.S.2d 301 [2003] ). The record reflects that petitioner's application was denied due, in part, to his overall poor disciplinary record, recidivistic criminal history, prior parole revocation and the nature of the instant offense. Inasmuch as those were appropriate factors to consider (see 7 NYCRR 1900.4), it cannot be said that the determination was irrational or violated petitioner's statutory or constitutional rights and, therefore, it will not be disturbed (see Matter of Mottshaw v. Joy, 307 A.D.2d 492, 492-493, 761 N.Y.S.2d 882 [2003]; Matter of Martin v. Goord, 305 A.D.2d 899, 900, 758 N.Y.S.2d 862 [2003], lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 510, 766 N.Y.S.2d 163, 798 N.E.2d 347 [2003]; Matter of McGee v. Recore, 277 A.D.2d 555, 556, 716 N.Y.S.2d 621 [2000] ). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: June 23, 2005
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)