Matter of Carlisle v Fischer

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Matter of Carlisle v Fischer 2012 NY Slip Op 31692(U) June 5, 2012 Sup Ct, Albany County Docket Number: 6938-11 Judge: George B. Ceresia Jr Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ALBANY SUPREME COURT In The Matter of ANTWANE CARLISLE, - Petitioner, -against COMM. BRIAN FISCHER NYDOCS, Respondents, For A Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Supreme Court Albany County Article 78 Term Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr., Supreme Court Justice Presiding RJI ## 01-12-ST3266 Index No. 6938 -1 I Appearmces : Antwane Carlisle Inmate No. 98-A-5948 Petitioner, Pro Se Green Haven Correctional Facility 594 Route 2 16 Stormville, NY I25 82-00 10 Eric T. Schneiderman Attorney General State of New York Attorney For Respondent The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 (William J. McCarthy, Assistant Attorney General of Comse 1) DECISLON/URDEWJUDGR.lENT George B. Ceresia, Jr., Justice In 2009 the New York State Legislature amended C?e Correction Law to add a new provision rendering qualified inmates eligible for conditior,cl release or parole consideration six months earlier than they would have been otherwise, referred to as a limited credit time [* 2] allowance C LCTA ,see Correction Law 803-b; Matter of Abreu v Fischer, 87 AD3d 1213 [3d Dept., 20 1I]). The statute established certain programming and educational criteria with respect to inmate eligibility for LCTA. In a determination of the Facility Superintendent dated September 1,20 I 1, the petitioner was denied a limited credit time allowance by reason that ZCTA Program CriteriaNot Satisfied . Specifically, i t was indicated that the petitioner did not complete the ASAT (Alcohol and Substance Abuse) Program. The Central Of- fice Review Committee subsequently affirmed the foreging determination. The petitioner has commenced the above-captioned CPLR Article 78 proceeding to review denial of LCTA. The petitioner indicates that he entered the ASAT program in 2009 but was prevented from completing the program due to imposition of a penalty of thirty days confinement, received as the result of a Tier I1 disciplinary determination.. He argues that Correction Law 803-b does not contain a requirement that he complete the ASAT Program. As set forth in Correction Law 0 8034: 2. Every eligible offender under the custody of the department or confined in a facility in the department of mental hygiene may earn a limited credit. time allowance if such oflender successfully participutes in the work and treatment p r o p a m assigned pursuant to section eight hundred fwe o this article f and: (a) successfully completes one or more significant programmatic accomplishments; and [Slignificant progammatic accomplishment m e a h t the inmate: (i) participates i no less than two years of colege programming; n or (ii) obtains a masters of professional studies degree; or (iii) successfully participates as an inmate prograin associate for no less than two years; or (iv) receives a certification from the state department of Iabor for 2 [* 3] (b) has not committed a serious disciplinary infraction or maintained an overall negative institutional record as defined i n rules and regulations promulgated by the commissioner; and (c) has not received a disqualifying judicial determination. (Correction Law 803-b [Z], emphasis supplied) Subsequent to the date of enactment ofcorrection Law 5 803-b, Anthony J. Annucci, Executive Deputy Commissionerofwhat was then the Department of CorrectionaI Services, issued a document entitled Notice To Inmate Population which set forth the requirements for the LCTA. Among them, was paragraph B, denominated Program Evaluation which recites: In accordance with Correction Law Section 805, in order to be approved for LCTA, the inmate must successfully be pursuing his or her recommended Earned Eligibility (EEP)/Program Plan. 13 It is well settled that in attempting to construe a statute the Court should attempt to effectuate the intent of the Legislature (see Yatauro v Man~ano,17 WY3d 420, 426-427 his or her successful participation in m apprenticeship program; or (v) successfully works as an inmate hospice aid for a period of no less than two years; or (vi) successfully works i the division of correctional industries n optical program for no less than two years and receives a certification as an optician h m the American board of opticianry; or (vii) receives an asbestos handling certificate from the department of labor upon successful completion of the training program and then works in the division of correctional industries asbestos abatement program as a hazardous materials removal worker or group leader for no less than eighteen months; or (viii) sucessfuIly completes the course curriculum and passes the minimum competency screening process performance examination for sign language interpreter, and then works as a sign language interpreter for deaf inmates for no less than one year; or (ix) successfully works i the puppies behind bars prograrn for a n period of no less than two years. (Correction Law 803-b [l] [c]) 3 [* 4] 120111; Nostrom v A.W. Chesterton Company, 15 NY3d 502, 507 [2010]; Roberts v Tishman Sgeyer Properties, L.P., 13 NY3d 270,286 [200?]; State of New York v Patricia 11. 6 NY3d 160, 142 [2006]). Ordinarily, the plain language of the statute is dispositive (see d Matter of Polan v State of New York Insurance Department, 3 NY3d 54,58 120041; Matter of Excellus Health Plan, Inc. v Serio, 2 NY3d 166, I7 1 120041; Nostrom v A.W. Chesterton Company, s u m ) . If the terms are clear and unambiguous, the court should construe it so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used (Orens v Novello, 99 NY2d 180, 185 [20023, quoting Auerbach v Board of Educ., 36 NY2d 198, 204 [I9951 quoting Patrolmen s Benevolent Assn. v CiQ of New York, 41 NY2d 205,208 [ 19761; In the Matter of Crucible Materials Corporation vNew York Power Authority, 13 NY3d 223,229 [2009]). [A]n agency s interpretation of the statutes it administers must be upheld absent demonstrated irrationality or unreasonableness, but where the question is one of pure statutory reading and analysis, dependent only on accurate apprehension of legislative intent, there is little basis to rely on any special competence or expertise of the admhiistrative agency (Lorillard Tobacco ComPanYv Roth, 99 NY2d 3 16,322 [2003] quoting Seittelman v Sabol, 91 NY2d 618,625, 19981). The Correction Law clearly states that in order to qualify for LCTA the inmate must successfully participate in the work and treatment programs assigned pimuant to Correction Law 805 (see Correction Law 803-b [2], supra). It is uncontroverted that the petitioner failed to complete the ASAT Program. In the Court s view, petitioner s failure to have completed the ASAT Program was a proper basis for denisll of LCTA. The Court has reviewed and considered petitioner s remaining arguments and 4 [* 5] contentions and finds them to be without merit. The Court finds that the determinationwas not made i violation of lawful procedure, n is not affected by an error of law, and is not irrational, arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The Court concludes that the petition must be dismissed. Accordingly it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the petition be and hereby is dismissed. This shall constitute the decision, order and judgment of the Court. The original decisiodorderljudgment is returned to the attorney for the respondents. All other papers are being delivered by the Court to the County Clerk for filing. The signing of this d e c i s i o ~ ~ r d e r l j u ddoes not constituteentry or filing under CPLR RuIe 2220. Counsel ~e~t is not relieved from the applicable provisions of that rule respecting filing, entry and notice of entry. / ENTER June Dated: 5 ,2012 Y - - I George B. Ceresia, Jr. Supreme Court Justice Troy, New York Papers Considered: I. 2. 3. Order To Show Cause dated December 12,20 11, Petition, Supporting Papers and Exhibits Answer dated February 9,20 12, Supporting Papers and Exhibits Petitioner s Reply Affirmation Filed January 25,2012 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.