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: Mujahid FARID, Appellant, v. Brion D. TRAVIS, as Chair of the New York State Board of Parole, et al., Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Torraca, J.), entered May 9, 1996 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent State Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for release on parole.
Petitioner was convicted of the crimes of attempted murder in the first degree and manslaughter in the first degree. He challenges respondent State Board of Parole's determination denying his request for parole release. The Board acknowledged petitioner's achievements while an inmate at the State correctional facility but also took into account, among other things, the serious nature of petitioner's underlying crimes and extensive criminal history. The Board properly considered petitioner's criminal history and current conviction and it was not required to enumerate or give equal weight to each factor that it considered in determining his application for parole (see, Executive Law § 259-i[1][a][i]; [2][c]; see also, Matter of Moore v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 233 A.D.2d 653, 649 N.Y.S.2d 830). Contrary to petitioner's contention, the record establishes that the Board was properly constituted and that the hearing was appropriately conducted. Because our review of the record satisfies us that the Board considered the relevant factors and statutory requirements in denying petitioner's request for parole, we find no basis to disturb the Board's determination (see, Matter of Moore v. New York State Bd. of Parole, supra; Matter of Dudley v Travis, 227 A.D.2d 863, 642 N.Y.S.2d 386, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 812, 649 N.Y.S.2d 379, 672 N.E.2d 605). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be lacking in merit.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: May 01, 1997
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)