You are here: / / WHERE THE SENTENCING JUDGE ORDERS DOCCS TO ENROLL DEFENDANT IN A SHOCK...
, , , ,

WHERE THE SENTENCING JUDGE ORDERS DOCCS TO ENROLL DEFENDANT IN A SHOCK PROBATION PROGRAM, DOCCS CANNOT CONSIDER THE ORDER TO BE MERELY A RECOMMENDATION WHICH CAN BE IGNORED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Clark, determined the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) did not have the discretion to treat Supreme Court’s order to enroll petitioner in the shock probation program as a recommendation which need not be implemented. Although the petitioner had been released from incarceration, the Third Department considered the case as an exception to the mootness doctrine:

… [W]hen applying the literal language of Penal Law § 60.04 (7) (a) and Correction Law § 865 (1), the most rational interpretation of the statutes is that, when the same sentencing judge imposes concurrent sentences on convictions for an eligible drug offense and another non-enumerated offense, the sentencing judge’s directive to enroll an eligible incarcerated individual into the shock incarceration program upon the conviction for the qualifying drug offense is binding on DOCCS, so long as the conviction on the additional non-drug offense is not one of the disqualifying offenses listed in Correction Law § 865 (1). Matter of Adams v Martuscello, 2026 NY Slip Op 04542, Third Dept 7-23-26

Practice Point: Absent a statutory exception, DOCCS must implement a sentencing judge’s order to enroll defendant in the shock probation program.

 

You might also like
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF COULD IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HER FALL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Collective Bargaining Agreement Subsequently Made Retroactive to Cover Period When it Had Expired Did Not Include Firefighters Hired During the Period the Agreement Had Expired
THE APPEAL WAS RENDERED MOOT BY DEFENDANT’S TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY AFTER SUPREME COURT RULED DEFENDANT HAD TITLE TO THE PROPERTY (THIRD DEPT).
THE NYS GAMING COMMISSION’S DUTIES TO INSPECT HORSES AND EQUIPMENT BEFORE A HARNESS RACE ARE PROPRIETARY, NOT GOVERMENTAL, IN NATURE; THEREFORE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE PRINCIPLES APPLY AND THE IMMUNITY DEFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE; DURING THE RACE A HORSE FELL AND CLAIMANT’S HORSE COLLIDED WITH THE FALLEN HORSE; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE FALLEN HORSE’S EQUIPMENT AND WHETHER THE HORSE EXHIBITED INDICATIONS HE WAS LAME; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILTY OF THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE; REGULATIONS RE: THE INSPECTION OF HORSES AND EQUIPMENT ALLOWED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE IMPUTED (THIRD DEPT). ​
Defendant’s Verbal Abuse of His Lawyer Did Not Constitute a Waiver of His Right to Counsel—Criteria for Valid Waiver Explained
Detention by Immigration Officials Did Not Disqualify Claimant from Receiving Workers’ Compensation Benefits
No Cause of Action Based Upon “Vicious Propensities” When Plaintiff Knocked Down by Playful Dog
POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA CONSTITUTED DISQUALIFYING MISCONDUCT.

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

STATUTORY PENALTIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN CLASS ACTIONS UNLESS THE STATUTE SPECIFICALLY... THE PARTIES IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING ENTERED A LITIGATION FUNDING AGREEMENT...