You are here: / / CONFINEMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT UNIT (RMHU) FOR 17...
, ,

CONFINEMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT UNIT (RMHU) FOR 17 HOURS A DAY, WITH AT LEAST SEVEN HOURS OF OUT-OF-CELL TIME PER DAY, FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS, DOES NOT VIOLATE THE HUMANE ALTERNATIVES TO LONG-TERM SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ACT (HALT ACT) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined the sanctions imposed upon petitioner, an incarcerated person with serious mental illness, did not violate the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (HALT Act) but did violate the Special Housing Unit Exclusion Law (SHU Exclusion Law):

… [P]etitioner remained in the RMHU [residential mental health treatment unit] where he received at least seven hours of out-of-cell time, therefore he was not in segregated confinement, which is defined as “the confinement of an incarcerated individual in any form of cell confinement for more than [17] hours a day” (Correction Law § 2 [23]). * * * Therefore, based on the foregoing, DOCCS [Department of Corrections and Community Supervision] did not violate Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii) by placing petitioner in the RMHU longer than three days without the requisite findings under the HALT Act.

However … we do find that the disciplinary sanctions, as written, violated the SHU Exclusion Law as set forth in Correction Law § 401. To that end, Correction Law § 401 provides that “[a]n incarcerated individual . . . shall not be sanctioned with segregated confinement for misconduct [in an RMHTU], or removed from the unit and placed in segregated confinement or a[n RRU (residential rehabilitation unit)], except in exceptional circumstances where such incarcerated individual’s conduct poses a significant and unreasonable risk to . . . safety . . . and . . . has been found to have committed an act or acts defined in [Correction Law § 137 [k] [6] [ii]]” (Correction Law § 401 [5] …). “Because the statute is phrased in the disjunctive” … , DOCCS must find that exceptional circumstances existed and a Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii) act occurred if either 1) the incarcerated individual is sanctioned with segregated confinement for misconduct on the unit or 2) the incarcerated individual is removed and placed in segregated confinement or an RRU. Here, the former applies as petitioner was sanctioned, in writing, with segregated confinement in the RMHU but was not found, in a written determination, to have committed an act pursuant to Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii), a fact which is uncontested by either party. Thus, the written disciplinary sanction was in violation of the SHU Exclusion Law. Therefore, the disciplinary sanctions imposed upon petitioner must be annulled. Matter of Walker v Commissioner, N.Y. State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2025 NY Slip Op 02834, Third Dept 5-8-25

 

You might also like
Criteria for Unconstitutional Impairment of Contract Rights Explained in Context of Requirement that Health Insurers Reimburse Customers Pursuant to Public Health Law Section 4308
AFTER A JUROR CAME FORWARD DURING DELIBERATIONS TO SAY SHE THOUGHT THE DEFENDANT HAD FOLLOWED HER IN HIS CAR DURING THE TRIAL AND OTHER JURORS EXPRESSED SAFETY CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO TRIAL SPECTATORS, THE JUDGE INTERVIEWED EACH JUROR AND PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL BASED ON A GROSSLY-UNQUALIFIED-JUROR ARGUMENT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S AGGRAVATED CRUELTY TO ANIMALS CONVICTION AFFIRMED; JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIES ONLY TO PERSONS, NOT ANIMALS; THE PRESENTENCE INTERVIEW AT THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT IS NOT A CRITICAL STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING REQUIRING THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY (THIRD DEPT).
Appellate Courts Have Jurisdiction Pursuant to Article 78 to Review Denial of Request for Reconsideration of Disciplinary Determination by the Department of Education’s Office of Professional Discipline
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) REQUESTS WAS MOOT, PETITIONER HAD SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILED AND WAS ENTITLED TO COSTS AND FEES, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
Absence of Privity Between Beneficiary of an Estate and the Attorneys Who Represented the Estate in Medical Malpractice and Wrongful Death Actions Precluded Legal Malpractice Action by Beneficiary
THE TRIAL PROOF COULD BE INTERPRETED TO SUPPORT AN INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY (ASSAULT SECOND) OR AN INTENT TO CAUSE PHYSICAL INJURY (ASSAULT THIRD); DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE INSTRUCTED ON ASSAULT THIRD AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THAT COUNT (THIRD DEPT).
Denial of Pistol Permit Application Was Based Upon a Misinterpretation of Penal Law 400.00

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE FACT THAT BOTH PLAINTIFF AND THE COW PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING FELL, WITH THE... BECAUSE THE INITIAL USE OF THE ROADWAY WAS PERMISSIVE, AND THERE WAS NO HOSTILE...