You are here: / Correction Law
, , ,

PETITIONER-INMATE PREVAILED IN THE PROCEEDING TO ANNUL THE PENALTY OF CONFINEMENT FOR 120 DAYS IN A SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT (SHU); PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED THE AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that petitioner-inmate had prevailed in the proceeding to annul the 120-day confinement in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) (imposed on him for threats of violence) and therefore was entitled to counsel fees. The 120-day confinement was annulled because the correctional facility did not comply with the requirements of the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (hereinafter the HALT Act) and the Special Housing Unit Exclusion Law (hereinafter the SHU Exclusion Law):

… [T]he plain language of these statutes clearly required specific conduct and findings to impose a 120-day confinement sanction against an incarcerated individual housed in an RMHU [residential mental health unit]. Even putting aside the lack of the required written findings, respondent did not have a reasonable basis to conclude that petitioner’s statements — made during a crisis call while he was confined in an RMHU without any indication that he had access to the individuals who were the subject of his threats or a history of causing serious physical injury or death to another person — constituted a qualifying threat under Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii) (A). Although Supreme Court recognized as much in annulling the 120-day confinement sanction, expressly stating that “the administrative record . . . does not contain facts from which the court can discern a rational basis for respondent’s determination,” it nevertheless denied petitioner’s application for counsel fees on the ground that respondent’s position was substantially justified. Given the inherent conflict in Supreme Court’s determinations and our finding that respondent’s position was not “substantially justified” within the meaning of CPLR 8601, we find that Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s request for counsel fees on this basis … . Matter of Walker v Martuscello, 2026 NY Slip Op 02701, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the application of the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (the HALT Act) and the Special Housing Unit Exclusion Law (the SHU Exclusion Law) with respect to the imposition of long-term solitary confinement on an inmate.

 

, , ,

THE “RECTAL INTRUSION” BY CORRECTION OFFICERS SEEKING TO FORCE CLAIMANT-INMATE TO COMPLY WITH THEIR ORDERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES IN THIS BATTERY ACTION AGAINST THE STATE; THE CONDUCT WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE CORRECTION OFFICERS’ EMPLOYMENT; THE STATE CAN BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Court of Claims, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mackey, determined the court should have considered the insertion of an object in claimant’s rectum as an element of damages in this suit by claimant-inmate against the State. The Court of Claims determined the State could not be vicariously liable because the conduct was outside the scope of the correction-officers’ employment. The Third Department disagreed, noting that the officers were attempting to force claimant to comply with their orders and the conduct was not motivated by sexual gratification:

There is no evidence that the rectal intrusion here was for any of the officers’ personal sexual gratification. Rather, the officers’ statements made during and immediately following the incident, as reported by claimant and credited by the Court of Claims, reflect that the sexually related conduct here was part of an overall — albeit objectively excessive — use of force to compel claimant’s compliance with a directive and, thus, was part of the officers’ employment-related function to enforce discipline within the correctional facility (see Correction Law § 137 [5]; 7 NYCRR 251-1.2 [d] …). … [T]he potential for such abuse of authority, if not the precise vile conduct engaged in here, is expressly addressed in the applicable instructions to correction officers in performing their employment-related disciplinary duties (see generally Correction Law § 137; 7 NYCRR 251-1.2). The record thus establishes defendant’s liability as to that part of the claim for damages related to the rectal intrusion … . Accordingly, we reverse the judgment to the extent that it excluded the same and remit for a new determination of claimant’s damages not inconsistent with this Court’s decision … . C.J. v State of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 02699, Third Dept 4-30-26

Practice Point: Here the “rectal intrusion” inflicted by correction officers upon claimant-inmate was part of an attempt to force claimant to comply with their orders. Therefore the conduct was withing the scope of the officers’ employment for which the State can be vicariously liable.

 

,

THE RESPONDENT CORRECTION OFFICER PARTICIPATED IN A GANG ASSAULT ON AN INMATE WHICH RESULTED IN THE INMATE’S DEATH; THE CORRECTION OFFICER WAS ACQUITTED OF CRIMINAL CHARGES; THE NY STATE POLICE BROUGHT THIS PROCEEDING SEEKING AN “EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER” (ERPO) WHICH PROHIBITS RESPONDENT FROM POSSESSING FIREARMS; SUPREME COURT DENIED THE PETITION; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT GRANTED IT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Supreme Court should have issued an “extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) which preclude the respondent correction officer from possessing firearms. The respondent was involved in a gang assault on an inmate which caused the inmates death. The respondent had been acquitted of the related criminal charges:

… [T]he burden was on petitioner [the New York State Police] under the circumstances here to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent posed “a substantial risk of physical harm to other persons as manifested by homicidal or other violent behavior by which others are placed in reasonable fear of serious physical harm” (Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 [a] [2]; see CPLR 6343 [2]). Petitioner met that burden by establishing that respondent actively participated in the assault of a restrained incarcerated individual by grabbing the victim by the chest and holding him down while other officers kicked the victim in the abdomen and groin (see CPLR 6342 [2] [a]). Indeed, that conduct is particularly egregious in this case because “DOCCS regulations require correction officers to exercise ‘[t]he greatest caution and conservative judgment’ in determining whether physical force against an inmate is necessary” ( … 7 NYCRR 251-1.2 [a]), inasmuch as “[c]orrection officers are tasked with the formidable and critical responsibility of protecting the safety of inmates and coworkers while maintaining order in correctional facilities” (id. at 385). Respondent adduced no evidence to the contrary at the hearing. * * *

We therefore reverse the order, reinstate the application, grant the application insofar as it seeks the issuance of a final ERPO, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings pursuant to CPLR 6343 (3). Matter of New York State Police v Galliher, 2026 NY Slip Op 02510, Fourth Dept 4-24-26

Practice Point: The “Extreme Risk Protection Act” (CPLR 6343) provides a mechanism to prohibit the possession of firearms. Here a correction officer participated in a gang assault on an inmate which resulted in the inmate’s death. The correction officer was acquitted of criminal charges and could therefore possess firearms. The NY State Police brought this proceeding for a “final extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) prohibiting the correction officer from possessing firearms.

 

, ,

THE REQUIREMENT IN THE LONG-TERM SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ACT (HALT ACT) THAT A HEARING BE HELD WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF PLACING AN INMATE IN A SEGREGATED HOUSING UNIT (SHU) IS “DIRECTORY,” NOT MANDATORY; THEREFORE ANY ISSUE RELATED TO A DELAY IN HOLDING THE HEARING MUST BE PRESERVED FOR REVIEW AND THE INMATE MUST DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE CAUSED BY THE DELAY (THIRD DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice McShan, determined the requirement that, under the Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (HALT Act), a disciplinary hearing be held within five days of an inmate’s placement in a segregated housing (SHU) is directory, not mandatory. Therefore the issue must be preserved for review and the inmate must demonstrate prejudice resulting from any delay in holding the hearing:

… [W]hen examining the entirety of statutory provisions enacted by the HALT Act with respect to the use of segregated housing, numerous provisions expressly provide directives that limit respondent’s authority to utilize segregated housing or mandating that incarcerated individuals be released or diverted to RRU [residential rehabilitation unit] … . The exclusion of any such language from the time frame in which a hearing must be held after an incarcerated individual is placed in segregated housing suggests that it was not intended to deprive respondent of his authority to proceed with a hearing in the event of a violation. We therefore find that the language requiring that a hearing be completed no later than five days after an incarcerated individual is placed in prehearing segregated confinement remains directory under the HALT Act … . Matter of Guerrero v Martuscello, 2026 NY Slip Op 01263, Third Dept 3-5-26

 

, ,

PURSUANT TO THE “HUMANE ALTERNATIVES TO LONG-TERM CONFINEMENT ACT (HALT ACT),” AN INMATE WHO IS FACING SEGREGATED CONFINEMENT HAS A RIGHT TO THE PRESENCE OF COUNSEL AT THE DISPOSITIONAL PHASE OF THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Powers, determined that the incarcerated petitioner had a right to have his attorney present during the dispositional phase of the disciplinary hearing after he was found guilty of possession of a weapon. The Hearing Officer had determined counsel’s presence was “no longer necessary” in violation of the “Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act” (the HALT Act—Correction Law 137):

… [F]ollowing the passage of the HALT Act, Correction Law § 137 provides that an incarcerated individual “shall be permitted to be represented” during a disciplinary hearing that may result in placement in segregated confinement “by any attorney or law student, or” with certain limitations, “any paralegal or incarcerated person” (Correction Law § 137 [6] [l]). The pertinent regulations have since also been amended to specify that “[w]here an incarcerated individual is placed in, or pending possible placement in, segregated confinement pending a disciplinary hearing or superintendent’s hearing, such incarcerated individual shall be permitted to be represented by,” as is relevant here, “an attorney, having good standing, admitted to practice in any state” (7 NYCRR 251-5.2 [a] [1]).

Therefore, pursuant to both statute and regulation, if an incarcerated individual so chooses, he or she is entitled to have representation present during a disciplinary hearing when the permissible sanctions include the imposition of segregated confinement. Contrary to the Hearing Officer’s determination, the dispositional phase is an integral aspect of the disciplinary hearing and the statutory and regulatory right to representation at issue here extends to that phase of the hearing. Matter of Wingate v Martuscello, 2025 NY Slip Op 07048, Third Dept 12-18-25

 

, , ,

THE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT VOLUNTARILY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL HEARING; ORDER REVERSED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the SORA risk-level determination, held that the record did not establish that defendant waived his right to be present at the risk-level hearing:

“A sex offender facing risk level classification under SORA has a due process right to be present at the SORA hearing” (… see Correction Law § 168-n[3]). “To establish whether a defendant, by failing to appear at a SORA hearing, has waived the right to be present, evidence must be shown that the defendant was advised of the hearing date, of the right to be present at the hearing, and that the hearing would be conducted in his or her absence” … . “Before proceeding in the defendant’s absence, the court must make an inquiry and recite on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that the defendant’s absence was deliberate” (… see Correction Law § 168-n[6]). Here, defense counsel expressly stated that the defendant was not waiving his right to be present after he failed to appear for the SORA hearing, and there is no evidence in the record that the defendant was made aware of the consequences of failing to appear for the SORA hearing or that his absence … was deliberate.

Since the record fails to establish that the defendant voluntarily waived his right to be present at the SORA hearing, the order must be reversed and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new risk level assessment hearing and a new determination thereafter, to be preceded by notice to the defendant in accordance with Correction Law § 168-n(3). People v Blount, 2025 NY Slip Op 05972, Second Dept 10-29-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what must be placed on the record to explain a defendant’s absence from a SORA risk-level-assessment proceeding.

 

, , , ,

THE JUDGE’S ASSESSING SORA RISK-LEVEL POINTS NOT REQUESTED BY THE PEOPLE VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW; THE JUDGE FAILED TO MAKE THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CORRECTION LAW FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE; DETERMINATION VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the SORA risk level determination, held that the judge violated defendant’s right to due process of law by assessing points that were not requested by the People, and violated the Correction Law requirements for imposing an upward departure:

Although defendant failed to object to the assessment of points … when the court rendered its oral decision, we “review defendant’s contention in the interest of justice in light of the substantial infringement upon [her] due process and statutory rights” … .

… [T]he court failed to comply with the requirement of Correction Law § 168-n (3) that it set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which it based its decision to grant the People’s request for an upward departure … . In its decision, the court merely concluded, under the first part of the relevant three-part analysis, that the People had identified “aggravating . . . circumstances . . . of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” … . At no time in its decision did the court render a determination on the other two parts of the relevant analysis. Rather, after identifying the aggravating circumstances, the court conclusorily granted the People’s application for an upward departure, without ever “weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors to determine whether the totality of the circumstances warrants a departure to avoid an over- or under-assessment of the defendant’s dangerousness and risk of sexual recidivism” … . People v Ridley, 2025 NY Slip Op 05599, Fourth Dept 10-10-25

Practice Point: If a judge assesses SORA risk-level points not requested by the People, the defendant’s due process rights are violated.

Practice Point: In granting an upward departure in a SORA risk-level-assessment proceeding, the judge must make the findings required by the Correction Law.

 

, , , , ,

THE SORA HEARING JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED AN UPWARD DEPARTURE, INCREASING DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK LEVEL, BASED ON INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) OR RAISED BY THE PEOPLE AT THE HEARING; TO DO SO VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing County Court, determined the judge should not have increased defendant’s SORA risk-level based upon information which was not included in the risk assessment instrument (RAI) or raised by the People at the SORA hearing:

“The due process guarantees in the United States and New York Constitutions require that a defendant be afforded notice of the hearing to determine [their] risk level pursuant to SORA and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the [RAI]” … . It is therefore improper for a court to depart from the presumptive risk level based on a ground for departure that has never been raised (see id.). Here, because defendant’s employment was not presented as a basis for departure in the RAI or by the People at the hearing, defendant was not afforded notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond to it … . We therefore reverse the order, vacate defendant’s risk level determination, and remit the matter to County Court for a new risk level determination and, if necessary, a new hearing in compliance with Correction Law § 168-n (3) and defendant’s due process rights … . People v Lincoln, 2025 NY Slip Op 03930, Fourth Dept 6-27-25

Practice Point: A defendant is entitled to notice of all the evidence which the court will rely for a SORA risk-level assessment such that the defendant has an opportunity to respond.

 

THE SANCTION THAT PETITIONER BE CONFINED TO A SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT (SHU), NOW KNOWN AS SEGRETATED CONFINEMENT, FOR 730 DAYS VIOLATED THE HUMANE ALTERNATIVES TO LONG-TERM SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ACT (HALT ACT); THE CORRECTION LAW LIMITS SUCH CONFINEMENT TO 15 CONSECUTIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full fledged opinion by Justice Pritzker, determined that the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act (the HALT Act) prohibited petitioner’s confinement in a special housing unit (SHU), now known as segregated confinement, for 730 days. The maximum permitted by the Correction Law is 15 consecutive days:

… [P]ursuant to Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (i), DOCCS [NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision] “may place a person in segregated confinement for up to three consecutive days and no longer than six days in any [30-]day period if, pursuant to an evidentiary hearing, it determines that the person violated [DOCCS] rules which permit a penalty of segregated confinement. [DOCCS] may not place a person in segregated confinement for longer than three consecutive days or six days total in a [30-]day period unless the provisions of subparagraph (ii) . . . are met.” … Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii) provides that DOCCS “may place a person in segregated confinement beyond the limits of subparagraph (i) . . . or in [an RRU] only if, pursuant to an evidentiary hearing, it determines by written decision that the person committed one of [certain statutorily provided] acts and if the [C]ommissioner or his or her designee determines in writing based on specific objective criteria the acts were so heinous or destructive that placement of the individual in general population housing creates a significant risk of imminent serious physical injury to staff or other incarcerated persons, and creates an unreasonable risk to the security of the facility.” Although Correction Law § 137 (6) (k) (ii) does not contain a specific temporal limitation, this can be found in Correction Law § 137 (6) (i) (i), which provides, with certain exceptions, that “[n]o person may be placed in segregated confinement for longer than necessary and no more than [15] consecutive days. Nor shall any person be placed in segregated confinement for more than [20] total days within any [60-]day period.” Given these limitations, we find that not only the penalty imposed by the Hearing Officer, but also the reduced penalty of 730 days in SHU, violates the HALT Act. Matter of Peterkin v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2025 NY Slip Op 03617, Third Dept 6-12-25

 

, ,

THERE IS NO FEDERAL SEX-OFFENDER-REGISTRATION REGIME; THEREFORE A FEDERAL CHILD-PORNOGRAPHY CONVICTION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A “FELONY IN ANY OTHER JURISDICTION FOR WHICH THE OFFENDER IS REQUIRED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CORRECTION LAW; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A “SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER” BASED UPON THE “FOREIGN-FELONY” PROVISION OF THE CORRECTION LAW (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined defendant should not have been classified as a sexually violent offender because his federal child pornography conviction did not require registration as a sex offender. The Correction Law defines a “sexually violent offender” to include a defendant who has been convicted of a felony in a foreign jurisdiction and is required to register as a sex offender in that jurisdiction. Because there is no federal sex-offender-registration regime, the foreign-conviction provision of the Correction Law does not apply here:

The primary issue on this appeal from a Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) risk assessment determination is whether defendant was properly designated as a sexually violent offender under Correction Law § 168-a (3). SORA defines three circumstances under which such a designation is appropriate. Relevant here is the third circumstance: where a defendant stands convicted of “a felony in any other jurisdiction for which the offender is required to register as a sex offender in the jurisdiction in which the conviction occurred” (Correction Law § 168-a [3] [b]). A plain reading of the statutory language, and application of our precedent in this area, establish that defendant was not required to register as a sex offender in the jurisdiction in which his conviction occurred and, therefore, was improperly designated as sexually violent. * * *

Applying the clear and unambiguous statutory language in this case, defendant cannot be designated as “sexually violent” because he was not required to register as a sex offender in the jurisdiction in which his conviction occurred. This is so because the federal government does not maintain a sex offender registry of the sort that states are required to operate by federal mandate. Although the federal government maintains two sex offender databases, the information contained in them merely represents a collection of registration information acquired from registries maintained by individual state and territorial jurisdictions (see 34 USC § § 20921; 20922). People v Sherlock, 2025 NY Slip Op 02966, CtApp 5-15-25

Practice Point: There is no federal sex-offender-registration regime. Therefore a federal child pornography conviction does not constitute a “felony in any other jurisdiction for which the offender is required to register as a sex offender” within the meaning of the Correction Law. Therefore a federal child pornography conviction does not trigger a “sexually violent offender” SORA designation.

 

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