State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: April 23, 2015 520046 

________________________________

In the Matter of MARK 

LACKWOOD,

Appellant,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF 

PAROLE,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: March 31, 2015

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________

Mark Lackwood, Otisville, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M.

Arnold of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Collins, J.),

entered September 29, 2014 in Albany County, which dismissed

petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR

article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole

denying petitioner's request for parole release.

In 1995, petitioner was convicted of murder in the second

degree and two counts of robbery in the first degree. He was

sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 15 years to life on the

murder conviction and 121⁄2 to 25 years on the robbery convictions. 

In April 2013, he made his third appearance before the Board of

Parole seeking to be released to parole supervision. At the

conclusion of the hearing, the Board denied his request and

ordered him held for 24 months. When a timely decision was not

issued on his administrative appeal, he commenced this CPLR
-2- 520046 

article 78 proceeding.1 Following joinder of issue, Supreme

Court dismissed the petition and this appeal by petitioner

ensued. 

Initially, we note that parole release determinations are

discretionary and will not be disturbed so long as the Board

complied with the statutory requirements set forth in Executive

Law § 259-i (see Matter of Delacruz v Annucci, 122 AD3d 1413,

1413 [2014]; Matter of Delrosario v Evans, 121 AD3d 1152, 1152-

1153 [2014]). In making its decision, the Board is not required

to give equal weight to each factor delineated in the statute

(see Matter of Singh v Evans, 118 AD3d 1209, 1210 [2014], lv

denied 24 NY3d 906 [2014]; Matter of Sanchez v Divison of Parole,

89 AD3d 1305, 1306 [2011]). Here, the record discloses that the

Board considered not only the serious nature of petitioner's

crimes, but also his criminal history, prison disciplinary

record, program accomplishments and postrelease plans, as well as

the sentencing minutes and his low COMPAS Risk and Needs

Assessment score (see Matter of Delrosario v Evans, 121 AD3d at

1153; Matter of Rivers v Evans, 119 AD3d 1188, 1188-1189 [2014]). 

In addition, the Board gave due consideration to the outstanding

deportation order, which is only one of the many factors that it

was required to consider (see Matter of Borrell v New York State

Div. of Parole, 123 AD3d 1206, 1206-1207 [2014]). Although

petitioner further contends that the Board failed to promulgate

written guidelines to comply with the 2011 amendment to Executive

Law § 259-c (4), this argument has previously been considered and

rejected by this Court (see Matter of Montane v Evans, 116 AD3d

197, 200-203 [2014], appeal dismissed 24 NY3d 1052 [2014]). In

sum, inasmuch as the Board's determination does not exhibit

"'irrationality bordering on impropriety'" (Matter of Silmon v

Travis, 95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000], quoting Matter of Russo v New

York State Bd. of Parole, 50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]), we decline to

disturb it.

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

1 The Board's decision was eventually affirmed on

administrative appeal. 
-3- 520046 

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs. 

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court