Matter of Torres v Evans

Annotate this Case
Matter of Torres v Evans 2013 NY Slip Op 07492 Decided on November 13, 2013 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 13, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
PETER B. SKELOS
RUTH C. BALKIN
SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
2012-07038
(Index No. 415/12)

[*1]In the Matter of Lance Torres, appellant,

v

Andrea Evans, etc., respondent.




Lance Torres, Otisville, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y.
(Richard Dearing and Matthew W. Grieco of
counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the New York State Board of Parole dated August 17, 2011, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner's request to be released on parole, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Marx, J.), dated May 7, 2012, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the answer and return served by the respondent adequately complied with CPLR 7804(d) (see Amoco Oil Co. v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of Mamaroneck, 122 AD2d 755, 757).

The petitioner's conclusory contention that the determination under review was irrational is without merit (see Matter of Siao-Pao v Dennison, 11 NY3d 777, 778; Matter of Fraser v Evans, 109 AD3d 913).

The petitioner's remaining contention also is without merit.

Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
MASTRO, J.P., SKELOS, BALKIN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.

ENTER: [*2]

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.