"Notwithstanding the above disposition, we take this opportunity, under the nnique circumstances of this case, to comment on one aspect of respondent's determination. Although the adult son of one of the slain police officers appeared at a victim impact meeting concerning petitioner and spoke at length in favor of his release (see, CPL 440.50[1)), respondent's subsequent decision makes no mention of that statement and neither a transcript of the victim impact statement nor a report thereon (see Executive Law §259-i[2] [c] [A] [v]) appears in the administrative record. In fact, respondent affirmatively cited the negative impact of petitioner's action upon the victims' families as one justification for denying him parole. While we appreciate that respondent may weigh the relevant factors set forth in Executive Law § 259-i(2)(c)(A) as it fit (see generally Matter of Silmon v. Travis, supra at 476-477) and need not discuss each factor in its decision (see e.g. Matter of Zayd WW. v. Travis, 17 AD3rd 755-756 [2005], Iv denied 5 NY3d 706 [2005]; Matter of Waters v. New York State Div. of Parole, 252 AD2d 759, 760 [1998], Iv denied 92 NY2d 812 [1998]), where, as here, it is provided with a compelling victim impact statement which advocates for the release of the prospective parolee, explicit reference to such an exceptional submission would facilitate "intelligent appellate review" of respondent's required compliance with the dictates of Executive Law § 259-i (Matter of Ek v. Travis, 20 AD3d 667, 668 [2005], Iv dismissed 5 NY3d 862 [2005])."


The August 1, 2006, parole hearing, as was the case in the July 27, 2004, parole board, failed to acknowledge or discuss the crime victim statement that was given by the son of the slain officer, on behalf of his family, urging the parole board to grant Appellant release on parole. The parole panel of August 1, 2006, ignored the victim's impact statement in support of Appellant's release, and all other satisfied requirements for parole release consideration pursuant to Exec. Law §259i(2)(c)(a).


Appellant raised his concerns about a July 20, 2006, New York Law Journal report stating Chairman Robert Dennison is being sued for alleged acts of impropriety. Appellant concerns were based on the fact the son of the slain officer was interviewed by Chairman Dennison, and the transcript of that interview was never provided the July 27, 2004 or August 1, 2006, parole board. As a result of raising his concerns, the only response was from Commissioner A. Croce who asked where did Appellant get a copy of the interview. There was no discussion on the import of the crime victim's impact statement. It is here argued, the parole commissioner's ignored the crime victim's impact statement because it advocated for the release on parole of the Appellant.


- 3 -

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]