# Williams v. Board of Parole

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · October 30, 1995 · 220 A.D.2d 753

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5994619

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of Bobby Williams v. Board of Parole for New York State
- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** October 30, 1995
- **Citations:** 220 A.D.2d 753; 633 N.Y.S.2d 182; 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10466
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5994619

## Opinion text

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Board of Parole dated July 21, 1993, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Leavitt, J.), entered May 25, 1994, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
*754 Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Board of Parole’s consideration of the District Attorney’s negative recommendation concerning the petitioner’s request for parole was not a denial of the petitioner’s due process rights (which do not attach to parole hearings), contrary to law, or a violation of a positive statutory requirement (see, Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69 ; Matter of Briguglio v New York State Bd. of Parole, 24 NY2d 21 ; People ex rel. Grimmick v McGreevy, 141 AD2d 989 ; Matter of Lynch v New York State Div. of Parole, 82 AD2d 1012 ; Executive Law § 259-i [5]). Accordingly, the determination of the Board of Parole is beyond judicial review (see, Correction Law § 212; Matter of Briguglio v New York State Bd. of Parole, supra).
We have considered the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5994619. Public record. Not legal advice.