## Facts

- Danny Lin drove about 60 miles per hour in a 25 mile-per-hour zone and struck and killed a pedestrian.
- A jury convicted Lin of second-degree manslaughter.
- At sentencing, the judge noted Lin had no prior criminal record, but also referenced Lin’s fondness for fast driving and that he had modified his car to allow increased speeds despite knowing the danger.
- In October 2016, Lin received an indeterminate sentence of 1⅔ to 5 years’ incarceration (up to five years).
- In February 2018, Lin appeared for his initial parole interview; the New York State Board of Parole denied release.
- The Board acknowledged Lin’s good institutional conduct but concluded there was a reasonable probability he would not remain at liberty without violating the law and that release would pose a safety risk to the community, based on the reckless circumstances of the crime and the grave risk created by Lin’s driving behavior.
- Lin pursued an administrative appeal; the parole denial was affirmed.
- Lin then commenced an Article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the parole denial, arguing the Board failed to consider the statutory factors, focused mainly on the seriousness of the offense, failed to credit his acceptance of responsibility, and failed to consider the victim’s intoxication as an independent factor in the accident.

## Issues

1. Whether the Parole Board acted unlawfully or irrationally by denying parole primarily based on the seriousness and circumstances of Lin’s manslaughter offense.
2. Whether, under Article 78 review, the parole denial should be set aside as arbitrary and capricious because the Board allegedly failed to consider the factors listed in Executive Law § 259-i and ignored mitigating points such as Lin’s remorse and the victim’s intoxication.

## Decision

- The court denied Lin’s Article 78 petition.
- The court upheld the Parole Board’s denial of parole release.
- The court found the Board acted within its discretion and that the determination was not arbitrary and capricious.

## Legal Principles

- A parole denial challenged in an Article 78 proceeding will be upheld if the determination is made in accordance with law and has a rational basis; courts do not substitute their judgment for the Board’s weighing of the record.
- Executive Law § 259-i requires the Board to consider the statutory factors bearing on release, but the Board is not required to discuss every factor in detail or assign equal weight to each consideration.
- The Board may place substantial weight on the seriousness of the underlying offense and the circumstances of its commission when assessing public safety and the likelihood of lawful behavior if released.
- A petitioner’s disagreement with how the Board weighed mitigating points—such as claimed acceptance of responsibility, good prison conduct, or arguments that the victim’s intoxication contributed to the event—does not, by itself, show irrational decision-making where the Board’s stated public-safety rationale is supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The New York Supreme Court sustained the Parole Board’s denial of release because the Board’s decision reflected consideration of the required parole factors and rested on a rational public-safety assessment grounded in the reckless circumstances of Lin’s offense, despite Lin’s favorable conduct in custody and his arguments about remorse and the victim’s intoxication.


Lin v. Standford, 63 Misc. 3d 1208(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019)