In People ex rel. Flores v. Dalsheim, 66 A.D.2d 381, 388, 413 N.Y.S.2d 188 (Second Dept., 1979), the Court stated that a "parolee should be granted the benefit of a prompt disposition of charges against him in the interests of fundamental fairness....Whether the disposition was prompt must perforce be governed by many factors the length of the delay, the reason for the delay and whether the parolee himself contributed to the delay." In Flores, the Court cautioned that, "Damocles' sword should not menace a parolee who is guilty of an infraction of his parole, since the suspense runs counter to the objectives of rehabilitation and fair supervision which parole is intended to accomplish." However, in that case the Court held that the delay of about two and one-half years in executing a warrant against a parolee who continually failed to report or notify the state that he had changed his residence was not unreasonable under the circumstances so as to deny due process.