Esquilin v New York State Bd. of Parole

[*1] Esquilin v New York State Bd. of Parole 2018 NY Slip Op 50220(U) Decided on January 2, 2018 Supreme Court, Orange County Vazquez-Doles, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on January 2, 2018
Supreme Court, Orange County

Adolfo Esquilin, Petitioner, For a Judgment Pursuant to Civil Procedure Law and Rules Article 78,

against

New York State Board of Parole, Respondents.



6922/2017



Randolph Z. Volkell, Esq,

Attorney for Petitioner

14 Woodland Terrance

Merrick, New York 11566

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN

New York State Attorney General

J. Gardner Ryan, AAG, Of Counsel

Attorney for Respondent

One Civic Center Plaza, Suite 401

Poughkeepsie, New York 12601-3157
Maria S. Vazquez-Doles, J.

The following sets of papers numbered 1 to 43 were considered on the petitioner's application to annul a January 3, 2017 determination by a panel of the Parole Board denying him parole:

Notice of Petition and Verified Petition; Exhibits A-W and 1-5 1-30

Answer/return and exhibits 1-12, 31-43

Upon review of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the petition is granted and the determination is annulled. The Parole Board shall schedule a de novo hearing before a different panel.

In rendering its decision, the Board did commend petitioner for his personal growth and productive use of time while incarcerated noting no disciplinary incidents since 2009, favorable risk assessment and Case Plan and numerous letters of support. The Board also appropriately considered the seriousness of the petitioner's crime where he was hired to kidnap the victim and take him to another location. Petitioner and his accomplice, forcibly stole documents from the victim, attempted to abduct him and in the course of these crimes, the victim was shot in the head, three times, causing his death. The bases for the panel's other reasons for denial of parole (i.e., petitioner's lack of clarity about his participation in the crime and aggravating efforts to conceal the body) are not apparent to the Court on the record or in the panel's conclusory decision.

If the panel made any judgment with respect to the petitioner's credibility or his degree of remorse, it is not reflected in the panel's decision. It appears, then, that the panel improperly relied solely on the seriousness of the crime to deny the petitioner parole. See Ramirez v Evans, 118 AD3d 707 (2d Dept 2014).

This decision constitutes the order of the Court.

Dated: January 2, 2018

Goshen, New York

HON. MARIA S. VAZQUEZ-DOLES, J.S.C.