Opinion
November 24, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
In the absence of a convincing demonstration to the contrary, it is presumed that the New York State Board of Parole acted properly in accordance with statutory requirements (see, People ex rel. Herbert v New York State Bd. of Parole, 97 A.D.2d 128, 133, appeal withdrawn 62 N.Y.2d 617; Matter of Mackall v New York State Bd. of Parole, 91 A.D.2d 1023, 1024, lv denied 58 N.Y.2d 609; Matter of Abrams v New York State Bd. of Parole, 88 A.D.2d 951). Here, the petitioner failed to make a convincing showing that the Board relied upon incomplete and erroneous information in rendering its determination (see, Matter of Rice v Hammock, 99 A.D.2d 644, appeal withdrawn 62 N.Y.2d 804; Matter of Abrams v New York State Bd. of Parole, supra), or that it failed to consider each of the factors enumerated by statute (see, Executive Law § 259-i [c]) as it was required to do in making its parole release decision (see, Matter of Davis v New York State Div. of Parole, 114 A.D.2d 412). Moreover, the Board's written statement setting forth its reasons for denying parole, i.e, the "extraordinarily serious and bizarre nature of the present offenses", was, on this record, sufficient (see, Executive Law § 259-i [a]; Matter of Harris v New York State Bd. of Parole, 114 A.D.2d 897; Matter of Ristau v Hammock, 103 A.D.2d 944, lv denied 63 N.Y.2d 608; People ex rel. Herbert v New York State Bd. of Parole, supra; People ex rel. Feliciano v Waters, 99 A.D.2d 850; Matter of Bacon v Hammock, 96 A.D.2d 557), notwithstanding the petitioner's exemplary institutional record and educational achievements and his lack of a criminal record, all of which was considered by the Board. Because it appears that the Board acted in accordance with statutory requirements, its discretionary release decision is not subject to judicial review (see, Executive Law § 259-i; Matter of Davis v New York State Div. of Parole, supra; Matter of Harden v New York State Bd. of Parole, 103 A.D.2d 777; Matter of Ganci v Hammock, 99 A.D.2d 546, 548).
We have considered the remaining contentions advanced by the petitioner and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.