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: Derrick FAULKNER, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, Respondent.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Board of Parole revoking petitioner's parole.
In April 2002, petitioner was released to parole supervision, a condition of which was that he not violate the law or behave in a manner that threatens the safety or well-being of himself or others. In February 2004, petitioner was charged with violating this condition after he was caught leaving a Home Depot store with merchandise he had not paid for. Following a final revocation hearing, he was found guilty of the charges, his parole was revoked and he was placed on a 12-month hold. The determination was upheld on administrative appeal, resulting in this CPLR article 78 proceeding.
Initially, we note that our review of the determination at issue “is limited to an examination of the record to ascertain whether there exists substantial evidence to support it” (Matter of Bratton v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 23 A.D.3d 879, 879, 804 N.Y.S.2d 138 [2005]; see Matter of Brew v. New York State Div. of Parole, 22 A.D.3d 930, 930, 802 N.Y.S.2d 522 [2005] ). The loss prevention specialist of the Home Depot store testified at the final revocation hearing that he witnessed petitioner conceal items in a box on his cart and check out without paying for them. He stated that he confronted petitioner after petitioner passed the guards and was exiting the store. In our view, this testimony amply supports the administrative determination. Petitioner's testimony that he was away from his cart during checkout and thought the cashier had charged him for the items presented a credibility issue for the Board of Parole to resolve (see Matter of Williams v. New York State Div. of Parole, 23 A.D.3d 800, 800-801, 803 N.Y.S.2d 320 [2005] ). We have considered petitioner's other contentions and find them to be unavailing.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
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: January 26, 2006
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)