You are here: / Correction Law
,

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION MET ITS STATUTORY BURDEN TO ASSIST PETITIONER, A SEX OFFENDER, IN FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a partial dissent and an extensive dissenting opinion, determined that the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) had met its burden of providing assistance to sex offenders in finding suitable housing upon release. Here the petitioner was transferred to a residential treatment facility (RTF) when his sentence was complete because he was unable to find suitable housing as required by the Sexual Assault Reform Act (SARA):

Correction Law § 201 (5) requires DOCCS to assist inmates prior to release and under supervision to secure housing. DOCCS has interpreted its obligation under the statute as satisfied when it actively investigates and approves residences that have been identified by inmates and when it provides the inmates with adequate resources to allow them to propose residences for investigation and approval. This interpretation is consistent with the plain language of the statute as well as the larger statutory framework. While the agency is free, in its discretion, to provide additional assistance to inmates in locating SARA-compliant housing — particularly where an inmate is nearing the maximum expiration date or is residing in an RTF with the associated restrictions on the ability to conduct a comprehensive search — there is no statutory basis in Correction Law § 201 (5) for imposing such an obligation.

As to whether DOCCS met its obligation in this particular case, the record demonstrates that petitioner met biweekly with an ORC regarding SARA-compliant housing and also met several times with his parole officer. Petitioner was able to propose 58 residences which DOCCS investigated for SARA-compliance. The agency also affirmatively identified at least two housing options for petitioner in New York City — one was rejected by petitioner on the basis that he could not afford it and the other was the shelter in Manhattan where he was ultimately housed. Certainly, the record reflects that DOCCS provided more than passive assistance, given that it affirmatively contacted other agencies and providers on petitioner’s behalf because of his financial needs. Indeed, petitioner was successfully placed with New York City’s DHS through DOCCS’ efforts, which were adequate to meet its statutory obligation to provide assistance.

Finally, we agree with the Appellate Division that there was insufficient record evidence to establish that DOCCS’ determination to place petitioner at the Woodbourne RTF was irrational or that the conditions of his placement at that facility were in violation of the agency’s statutory or regulatory obligations …  .Matter of Gonzalez v Annucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 08057, CtApp 11-27-18

CRIMINAL LAW (THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION MET ITS STATUTORY BURDEN TO ASSIST PETITIONER, A SEX OFFENDER, IN FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP))/CORRECTION LAW (SEX OFFENDERS, HOUSING, THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION MET ITS STATUTORY BURDEN TO ASSIST PETITIONER, A SEX OFFENDER, IN FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP))/DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES (DOCCS) (THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION MET ITS STATUTORY BURDEN TO ASSIST PETITIONER, A SEX OFFENDER, IN FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP))/SEX OFFENDERS (THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION MET ITS STATUTORY BURDEN TO ASSIST PETITIONER, A SEX OFFENDER, IN FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP))/CORRECTION LAW (SEX OFFENDERS, HOUSING, THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION MET ITS STATUTORY BURDEN TO ASSIST PETITIONER, A SEX OFFENDER, IN FINDING SUITABLE HOUSING UPON RELEASE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP))

,

UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, PETITIONER, AN INMATE WHO WAS INITIALLY DENIED ENTRY INTO A PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM FOR HER AND HER CHILD, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR THE REVERSAL OF THE DENIAL 2ND DEPT.

The Second Department that petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) was properly denied. Although petitioner’s application to participate in the prison’s nursery program was improperly denied and she and her child were subsequently admitted to the program by Supreme Court, the facts did not justify the award of attorneys’ fees:

In March 2015, the petitioner moved pursuant to the New York State Equal Access to Justice Act (CPLR art 86; hereinafter the EAJA) for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. In an order dated August 31, 2015, the Supreme Court denied the petitioner’s motion on the grounds that the respondents’ decision to deny her application for admission to the Nursery Program was “substantially justified” and that “special circumstances make an award unjust” (CPLR 8601[a]). The petitioner appeals.

Under the EAJA, “a court shall award to a prevailing party, other than the state, fees and other expenses incurred by such party in any civil action brought against the state, unless the court finds that the position of the state was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust” (CPLR 8601[a]). An award of attorneys’ fees under the EAJA is generally left to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court … . “The determination of whether the State’s position was substantially justified is committed to the sound discretion of the court of first instance and is reviewable as an exercise of judicial discretion” … .

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in concluding that the respondents’ position was substantially justified, notwithstanding the court’s underlying conclusion that the respondents’ determination to deny the petitioner’s application for admission to the Nursery Program should be annulled … . In particular, the evidence in support of the respondents’ position would satisfy a reasonable person that it was not “desirable for the welfare of [the] child” to remain with the petitioner for purposes of the EAJA … . Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, although the court found that the respondents failed to consider certain factors, including the petitioner’s current achievements and the supervised nature of the Nursery Program, there was no evidence in the record that the respondents “willfully ignored” those factors. Moreover, this is not a case where the respondents failed to conduct any assessment as to whether the subject child’s welfare would best be served by remaining with the petitioner … . Matter of Losurdo v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 2017 NY Slip Op 05603, 2nd Dept 7-12-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE LAW (EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, ATTORNEYS’ FEES, UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, PETITIONER, AN INMATE WHO WAS INITIALLY DENIED ENTRY INTO A PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM FOR HER AND HER CHILD, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR THE REVERSAL OF THE DENIAL 2ND DEPT)/CORRECTIONS LAW (EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, ATTORNEYS’ FEES, UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, PETITIONER, AN INMATE WHO WAS INITIALLY DENIED ENTRY INTO A PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM FOR HER AND HER CHILD, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR THE REVERSAL OF THE DENIAL 2ND DEPT)/ATTORNEYS (EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, ATTORNEYS’ FEES, UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, PETITIONER, AN INMATE WHO WAS INITIALLY DENIED ENTRY INTO A PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM FOR HER AND HER CHILD, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR THE REVERSAL OF THE DENIAL 2ND DEPT)/EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (ATTORNEYS’ FEES, UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, PETITIONER, AN INMATE WHO WAS INITIALLY DENIED ENTRY INTO A PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM FOR HER AND HER CHILD, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES FOR THE REVERSAL OF THE DENIAL 2ND DEPT)

, ,

POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN REFUSE EMPLOYMENT IN A CIVILIAN POSITION BASED SOLELY UPON THE APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD WITHOUT APPLYING THE HIRING CRITERIA GENERALLY REQUIRED BY THE CORRECTIONS LAW.

The First Department, as a matter of first impression, determined the police department (NYPD) could refuse to hire petitioner as a civilian police communication technician (PCT) solely because petitioner had a criminal record, without regard to the criteria set out in Corrections Law article 23-a. The Corrections Law, in an effort to support the hiring of persons with a criminal record, generally requires employers to determine whether an applicant’s criminal record has a direct relationship with the responsibilities of the job and/or whether employment of the applicant would pose an unreasonable risk to the public.  The First Department concluded the Corrections Law excluded law enforcement from the reach of its hiring criteria:

Article 23-A broadly provides that employers, whether public or private, are prohibited from unfairly discriminating against persons previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses, unless after consideration of certain enumerated statutory factors, the employer determines that there is direct relationship between the offense(s) and the duties or responsibilities inherent in the license or employment sought or held by the individual, or such employment or license poses an unreasonable risk to the public, etc. (Correction Law §§ 752, 753). The statute defines the term “employment” as follows: “(5) Employment’ means any occupation, vocation or employment, or any form of vocational or educational training. Provided, however, that “employment” shall not, for the purposes of this article, include membership in any law enforcement agency” (Correction Law § 750[5] emphasis added). Matter of Belgrave v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 01548, 1st Dept 3-3-16

EMPLOYMENT LAW (POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN REFUSE EMPLOYMENT IN A CIVILIAN POSITION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD)/CORRECTIONS LAW (POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN REFUSE EMPLOYMENT IN A CIVILIAN POSITION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD)/MUNICIPAL LAW  (POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN REFUSE EMPLOYMENT IN A CIVILIAN POSITION SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD)

,

Criteria for Exercising Jurisdiction Over Foreign Corporation Based On Presence of Subsidiary Within Jurisdiction—the “Department Doctrine”

The Second Department explained when the presence of a subsidiary within the jurisdiction of the court can be sufficient to exercise jurisdiction over the foreign parent under the so-called “department doctrine” (the subsidiary must be a virtual “department” of the parent):

If control exercised by the domestic corporation over the foreign corporation … . Such control may be manifested in numerous ways and, thus, the method by which such control may be demonstrated will necessarily depend on the attendant facts … . Although the Court of Appeals has noted that it “has never held a foreign corporation present on the basis of control, unless there was in existence at least a parent-subsidiary relationship,” it has nevertheless indicated that this factor is not dispositive … . “The control over [a] subsidiary’s activities . . . must be so complete that the subsidiary is, in fact, merely a department of the parent” … . It is only when the two corporations are “in fact, if not in name . . . one and the same corporation, [that] there is realistically no basis for distinguishing between them” for jurisdictional purposes … .  Goel v Ramachandran, 2013 NY Slip Op 07708, 2nd Dept 11-20-13

 

, , , ,

Application for Certification as NYC School Bus Driver Should Have Been Denied Because of Past Drug Convictions

The First Department, over a dissent, reversed Supreme Court’s order that petitioner, who had been convicted of two drug offenses (felonies) in the past, be certified as a NYC Department of Education school bus driver.  The First Department explained the relevant criteria as follows:

Where the applicant seeks employment with the New York City Department of Education, the School Chancellor’s regulations apply and Regulation C-105 establishes procedures to be followed …for background investigations of pedagogical and administrative applicants. Regulation C-105 incorporates by reference article 23-A of the Correction Law. Correction Law § 752 (et seq.) prohibits unfair discrimination against a person previously convicted of a crime “unless: (1) there is a direct relationship between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and the specific license or employment sought or held by the individual; or (2) the issuance or continuation of the license or the granting or continuation of the employment would involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals.” Correction Law § 753(a) – (h), which set forth eight factors a public agency must consider in connection with an application for a license, include the person’s duties and responsibilities, the bearing, if any, the criminal offense(s) will have on the person’s “fitness or ability” to perform his or her duties, the time that has elapsed since the occurrence of the crime(s), the seriousness of the crime, information about the applicant’s reputation, etc., and the legitimate interest of the agency in protecting the safety and welfare of specific individuals or the general public. Regulation C-105 provides further that in reviewing the record of an applicant who has a prior criminal conviction, DOE is particularly concerned with offenses, among others, that involve the possession, distribution or selling of controlled substances.

The Chancellor’s Regulation, like the Corrections Law, provides that where the applicant has a certificate of relief from disabilities, that certificate “shall” also be considered (Correction Law § 753[3]). The certificate, however, only creates a “presumption of rehabilitation” with respect to the crime the individual was convicted of, it does not create a prima facie entitlement to the license the person is applying for… .  Matter of Dempsey v NYC Dept of Educ, 2013 NY Slip Op 05289, 1st Dept 7-16-13

 

,

Supreme Court’s Denial of Application for Stationary Engineer License Based on Applicant’s Criminal Record Reversed

The First Department, in this and several other similar rulings, reversed Supreme Court’s denial of petitioner’s application for a stationary engineer license determining that petitioner’s criminal record bore no relationship to the duties of a stationary engineer:

The determination to deny petitioner’s renewal application for a stationary engineer license was in violation of lawful procedure and lacked a rational basis. Respondents arbitrarily concluded that petitioner’s prior federal conviction for conspiracy bore a direct relationship to the duties and responsibilities attendant to a stationary engineer, the license for which he sought renewal after having his license renewed several times (see Correction Law § 750[3]; 752[2];…. Petitioner’s prior conviction resulted from the misuse of his administrative powers in his former position, which granted him control over hiring, payroll, and selection of vendors. Such actions bear no direct relationship to the equipment maintenance duties and responsibilities inherent in the stationary engineer license, and thus do not satisfy the first exception to the general prohibition of discrimination against persons previously convicted of criminal offenses (see Correction Law § 752[1]).  Matter of Donovan v LiMandri, 2013 NY Slip Op 04737, 1st Dept 6-25-13

 

,

Discrimination (Re Licensing) Based on Criminal Conviction Disallowed

The First Department annulled a determination denying petitioner’s renewal application for a stationary engineer license finding no rational basis for the denial. Petitioner had been convicted of participating in a kickback scheme.  The First Department noted that the equipment maintenance responsibilities of a stationary engineer were not implicated by the conviction.  The First Department wrote

[The actions underlying the conviction] bear no direct relationship to the equipment maintenance duties and responsibilities inherent in the stationary engineer license, and thus do not satisfy the first exception to the general prohibition of discrimination against persons previously convicted of criminal offenses (see Correction Law § 752[1]).The record further shows that respondent failed to afford petitioner the mandatory presumption of rehabilitation attendant to his certificate of relief from disabilities (see Correction Law § 753[2]), and appeared to have disregarded the additional evidence of rehabilitation submitted by petitioner. … We further find that respondent could not have rationally found petitioner to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety or welfare so as to satisfy the second exception to the general prohibition (see Correction Law § 752[2]). Petitioner disclosed his 2006 conviction, based on acts occurring in 2005 and earlier, on his license renewal applications from 2007 through 2010, all of which were granted. Matter of Dellaporte v NYC Dept of Buildings, 2013 NY Slip Op 03281, 1st Dept, 5-7-13

 

, ,

SORA Proof Burdens Explained

The Third Department noted the different proof burdens for a SORA classification hearing versus a modification hearing:

The People concede that defendant is entitled to a new hearing because Supreme Court treated the 2005 rehearing as one for modification, as opposed to classification (compare Correction Law § 168-n, with Correction Law § 168-o).   As the People now acknowledge, they bore the burden of establishing the determination sought by clear and convincing evidence … .  Inasmuch as the record here reflects that the burden was placed on defendant to demonstrate sufficient evidence warranting a departure from the risk level III classification (see Correction Law § 168-o [2]), we remit for a new hearing … . People v Middlemiss, 511311, 3rd Dept, 4-25-13

 

, , ,

1983 Action Against Department of Corrections Is Not Brought in the Court of Claims

The Third Department, in a decision by Justice Garry, reversed Supreme Court’s dismissal of a 1983 action against employees of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision challenging a urinalysis report:

Supreme Court found that it lacked jurisdiction based upon Correction Law § 24, which requires that actions alleging negligence by state correction officers be commenced in the Court of Claims; however, it has been established that this provision may not be applied to bar actions brought pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 … . Carrington v Moore, 513818, 3rd Dept 3-28-13

 

,

Failure of Sentencing Court to Inform Defendant of Period of Post-Release Supervision Required Release after Sentence Served

The Department of Corrections cannot remedy a court’s failure to impose a period of post-release supervision.  In this case the prisoner’s habeas corpus petition was granted and the prisoner, who had served his sentence, was released.  The Fourth Department determined that the sentencing court’s statement—“the supervisory period under the violent felony offender sentencing statute will be five years, which means when you come out on parole, you will be on five years of parole at the conclusion of the ten-year sentence”—did not pronounce the period of post-release supervision as required by Criminal Procedure Law 380.20.  People ex rel Finch v Brown, 23, KAH 11-00862, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

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