State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: July 2, 2015 520119 

________________________________

In the Matter of GEORGE HILL,

Appellant,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF PAROLE,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: June 8, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ.

__________

George Hill, Ossining, appellant pro se.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McNally Jr.,

J.), entered November 12, 2014 in Albany County, which dismissed

petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR

article 78, to review a determination of respondent which denied

petitioner's request for parole release.

In 1991, petitioner was involved in an incident in which he

shot a police officer multiple times, seriously injuring him. 

Petitioner was subsequently convicted of numerous crimes, the

most serious of which was attempted murder in the first degree

for which he is currently serving a term of 20 years to life in

prison. In July 2013, he made his second appearance before

respondent seeking to be released to parole supervision. 

Respondent denied his request and imposed a 24-month hold. 

Petitioner took an administrative appeal and, when it was not

decided within four months, he commenced this CPLR article 78

proceeding. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court dismissed

the petition and this appeal followed. 
-2- 520119 

Initially, we note that parole release decisions are

discretionary and will not be disturbed so long as respondent

complied with the statutory requirements set forth in Executive

Law § 259-i (see Matter of Campbell v Evans, 106 AD3d 1363, 1363

[2013]; Matter of Ruiz v New York State Div. of Parole, 70 AD3d

1162, 1163 [2010]). Contrary to petitioner's claim, the record

here reveals that respondent considered the relevant statutory

factors in denying his request. Specifically, respondent took

into account not only the serious nature of petitioner's crimes,

but also his criminal history, relatively clean prison

disciplinary record, positive program accomplishments,

postrelease plans, as well as the sentencing minutes and the

COMPAS Risk and Needs Assessment instrument (see Matter of

Lackwood v New York State Div. of Parole, 127 AD3d 1495, 1495;

Matter of Diaz v New York State Dept. of Corrections & Community

Supervision, 127 AD3d 1493, 1494 [2015]). Notably, respondent

was not required to give each of these factors equal weight (see

Matter of Lackwood v New York State Div. of Parole, 127 AD3d at

1495; Matter of Singh v Evans, 118 AD3d 1209, 1210 [2014], lv

denied 24 NY3d 906 [2014]). Moreover, in view of our decision in

Matter of Montane v Evans (116 AD3d 197, 202-203 [2014], appeal

dismissed 24 NY3d 1052 [2014]), we find no merit to petitioner's

claim that respondent failed to comply with the 2011 amendments

to Executive Law § 259-c (4).1 Similarly, given that petitioner

was incarcerated well before the 2011 amendments to Correction

Law § 71 became effective, respondent was not required to devise

a transitional accountability plan for petitioner (see Matter of

Borges v Stanford, 127 AD3d 1491, 1491 [2015]; Matter of Delacruz

v Annucci, 122 AD3d 1413, 1414 [2014]). Petitioner's remaining

arguments, including his challenge to the length of the 24-month

hold, have been considered and are unavailing. Inasmuch as

respondent's determination does not exhibit "'irrationality

bordering on impropriety'" (Matter of Partee v Evans, 117 AD3d

1258, 1259 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 901 [2014], quoting Matter

1 Subsequent to the denial of petitioner's request for

parole release, respondent promulgated formal regulations

governing parole release decisions (see 9 NYCRR 8002.3) and, as a

result, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in Matter of

Montane v Evans (supra) as moot.
-3- 520119 

of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]),

we find no reason to disturb it.

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court