Bidwell v. Stanford

• Decision Date: 13 March 2020
• Docket Number: TP 19–01940,225
• Parties: In the Matter of Amanda BIDWELL, Petitioner, v. Tina M. STANFORD, Chairwoman of New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

181 A.D.3d 1203

117 N.Y.S.3d 919 (Mem)

In the Matter of Amanda BIDWELL, Petitioner,

v.Tina M. STANFORD, Chairwoman of New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

225

TP 19–01940

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered: March 13, 2020

LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE F. ANEY, HERKIMER (FRANK L. MADIA OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.

LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (LAURA ETLINGER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination revoking her release to parole supervision. " ‘[I]t is well settled that a determination to revoke parole will be confirmed if the procedural requirements were followed and there is evidence [that], if credited, would support such determination’ " ( Matter of Wilson v. Evans, 104 A.D.3d 1190, 1190, 960 N.Y.S.2d 807 [4th Dept. 2013] ; see Matter of Rosa v. Fischer, 108 A.D.3d 1227, 1228, 969 N.Y.S.2d 706 [4th Dept. 2013], lv . denied 22 N.Y.3d 855, 979 N.Y.S.2d 561, 2 N.E.3d 929 [2013] ). We conclude that the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) determination that petitioner violated the conditions of her parole by attempting to escape custody and failing to successfully complete an inpatient treatment program is supported by substantial evidence (see generally Matter of Tambadou v. Annucci, 151 A.D.3d 1699, 1700, 53 N.Y.S.3d 857 [4th Dept. 2017] ). In making that determination, the ALJ was entitled to credit the testimony of respondent's witnesses and reject petitioner's version of the events (see id. at 1700, 53 N.Y.S.3d 857 ; Matter of Johnson v. Alexander, 59 A.D.3d 977, 978, 872 N.Y.S.2d 819 [4th Dept. 2009] ), and he was entitled to consider hearsay evidence (see Matter of Johnson v. Thompson, 134 A.D.3d 1404, 1405, 22 N.Y.S.3d 720 [4th Dept. 2015] ; Matter of Prodromidis v. McCoy, 292 A.D.2d 769, 769–770, 738 N.Y.S.2d 630 [4th Dept. 2002] ; People ex rel. Saafir v. Mantello, 163 A.D.2d 824, 825, 558 N.Y.S.2d 356 [4th Dept. 1990] ).