In the Matter of Noel Olmosperez, Appellant,v.Andrea W. Evans,, Respondent.BriefN.Y.October 15, 2015Emc T. SCH NEIDERMAN A ITORNEY GENERAL Hon. Andrew W. Klein Clerk of the Court Court of Appeals 20 Eagle Street STATE OF NEW Y ORK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Telephone (518) 776-2054 Albany, New York 12207 Re: Matter of Olmos-Perez v. Evans APL-2014-00162 Dear Mr. Klein: BARBARA D . UNDERWOOD SOLICITOR GENERAL January 26, 2015 This letter is submitted in response to yours of January 9, 2015, directing the parties to address whether the Parole Board's promulgation in July 2014 of final regulations implementing the 2011 amendments to Executive Law § 259-c has rendered this appeal moot. While the promulgation of those regulations rendered moot the principal issue raised in the motion for leave, it did not moot the appeal entirely. More particularly, petitioner's application to this Court for leave to appeal asserted numerous grounds for invoking this Court's review, including the claim that the Parole Board determination denying him release was unlawful because the Board had not promulgated regulations implementing the 2011 amendment to Executive Law § 259- c( 4). As the Court recognized recently in dismissing the appeal in a similar case , this issue is now moot as a result of the new regulations. T HE CAPITOL, ALBANY, NEW YORK 12224-0341 • PHONE (5 18) 776-2050 • FAX (5 18) 9 15-7723 *NOT FOR SERVICE OF PAPERS httµ://www.oag.stare.ny. us Page 2 See Matter of Montane u. Evans,_ N.Y.3d _, 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 3388 (December 16, 2014). Petitioner's Rule 500.11 submission does not pursue this issue. Thus, the regulation claim is not only moot, it has been abandoned. Petitioner now argues only that the Board's determination was irrational in his specific case because the Board placed too much emphasis on the serious nature of his crime, and insufficient emphasis on his age at the time of the crime and the results of his risk and needs assessment. These arguments are neither novel, substantial nor of statewide importance. Indeed, it is questionable that the Court would have granted leave in this case had these been the only arguments presented. Thus, although the appeal is not entirely moot, the Court may wish to reconsider its leave grant. Respectfully submitted, ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Solicitor General ANDREA OSER Deputy Solicitor General NANCY A. SPIEGEL Senior Assistant Solicitor ~ral F~~ Assistant Solicitor General cc: Seymour James, Esq. Legal Aid Society 199 Water Street New York, New York 10038 Attn: Cynthia Conti-Cook, Esq. Reproduced on Recycled Paper Page 3