Farid v. Travis
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Scott v. Dennison (District Court, W.D. New York 2010)
- Waters v. New York State Division of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Robles v. Dennison (District Court, W.D. New York 2010)
- Bramble v. New York State Board of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Charlemagne v. State of New York Division of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Henderson v. Travis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Jones v. New York State Board of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Morel v. Travis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Jerrell v. Ibsen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- People ex rel. Casey v. Demsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- People ex rel. Pagan v. New York State Board of Parole (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Torraca, J.), entered May 9, 1996 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent State Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for release on parole. Petitioner was convicted of the crimes of attempted murder in the first degree and manslaughter in the first degree. He challenges respondent State Board of Parole’s determination denying his request for parole release. The Board acknowledged petitioner’s achievements while an inmate at the State correctional facility but also took into account, among other things, the serious nature of petitioner’s underlying crimes and extensive criminal history. The Board properly considered petitioner’s criminal history and current conviction and it was not required to enumerate or give equal weight to each factor that it considered in determining his application for parole (see, Executive Law § 259-i [1] [a] [i]; [2] [c]; see also, Matter of Moore v New York State Bd. of Parole, 233
Cardona, P. J., White, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.