In the Matter of Bryan Boss v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole

• Decision Date: 10 November 2011
• Parties: In the Matter of Bryan BOSS, Appellant,v.NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

89 A.D.3d 1265

932 N.Y.S.2d 387

2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07894

In the Matter of Bryan BOSS, Appellant,

v.NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE, Respondent.

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

Nov. 10, 2011.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREBryan Boss, Gouverneur, appellant pro se.Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Kathleen M. Arnold of counsel), for respondent.Before: PETERS, J.P., SPAIN, McCARTHY, GARRY and EGAN JR., JJ.SPAIN, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Platkin, J.), entered January 11, 2011 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parole release.

Petitioner is currently serving a prison sentence of 2 to 6 years after pleading guilty to attempted rape in the second degree and attempted sexual abuse in the first degree arising from incidents with a 13–year–old girl and a 12–year–old girl. Although his conditional release date was November 20, 2009, petitioner remains incarcerated due to his failure to obtain approval from the Board of Parole as to a proposed residence, a special condition placed on his parole release. Petitioner commenced this proceeding to challenge the denial and Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Petitioner now appeals.

We affirm. The Board maintains the discretion to impose special conditions that must be satisfied prior to an inmate's release from prison ( see Executive Law § 259–c [2]; § 259–g [2]; 9 NYCRR 8003.2[l]; 8003.3; Matter of Breeden v. Donnelli, 26 A.D.3d 660, 660–661, 808 N.Y.S.2d 839 [2006]; Matter of Wright v. Travis, 297 A.D.2d 842, 746 N.Y.S.2d 850 [2002] ). Here, the condition that petitioner secure an approved residence prior to his release was rational in light of his conviction for sex offenses perpetrated against two young girls and the alleged violation of an order of protection against one of them ( see Matter of Breeden v. Donnelli, 26 A.D.3d at 661, 808 N.Y.S.2d 839; Matter of Billups v. New York State Div. of Parole, 18 A.D.3d 1085, 1085–1086, 795 N.Y.S.2d 408 [2005] ). We also reject petitioner's contention that respondent failed in its duty to assist him with securing acceptable housing ( see Executive Law § 259–a [6] ). The record demonstrates that respondent has maintained contact with several agencies in the county of petitioner's conviction in such an effort. Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined...