Court Opinion

ID: 3149308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-23 23:05:31.985873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:33.002234
License: Public Domain

OPINION OF THE COURT
 

  Memorandum.
 

  The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.
 

  Petitioner challenges the validity and potential application of certain regulations of the Board of Parole which address risks and needs assessments and related matters
  
   (see
  
  9 NYCRR 8002.3 [a]). However, the Board promulgated those regulations
   
   *1014
   
  after its determination here and has not had an opportunity to consider petitioner’s arguments. Given the impact that a determination of petitioner’s claims will certainly have in this and future cases, the more prudent course is to leave the propriety of the regulations to be raised in the first instance before the Board
  
   (see Walton v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,
  
  8 NY3d 186, 197 [2007];
  
   Schiavone v City of New York,
  
  92 NY2d 308, 317 [1998];
  
   see also Matter of Red Hook
  
  /
  
   Gowanus Chamber of Commerce v New York City Bd. of Stds. & Appeals,
  
  5 NY3d 452, 461-462 [2005]). Because, under the particular circumstances of this case, none of petitioner’s statutory and regulatory claims are reviewable on appeal at this juncture, we express no opinion on the merits of those claims.
 

  Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Pigott, Rivera, AbdusSalaam and Fahey concur; Judge Stein taking no part.
 

  Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.