Matter of Artis v Donelli
Annotate this CaseDecided on June 14, 2007
Supreme Court, Franklin County
In the Matter of the Application of Anthony Artis, Petitioner,
against
John J. Donelli, Superintendent, Bare Hill Correctional Facility, Respondent.
2006-1253
S. Peter Feldstein, J.
This proceeding was commenced by the petition for a writ of habeas corpus of Anthony Artis, verified on December 6, 2006, and stamped as filed in the Franklin County Clerk's office on December 8, 2006. Petitioner, who is an inmate at the Bare Hill Correctional Facility, is challenging the September 27, 2006, decision of the commissioner's designee affirming the September 22, 2006, recommendation of the Time Allowance Committee at the Bare Hill Correctional Facility not to restore six months of potentially available good time. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause on December 14, 2006. As part of that Order to Show Cause the Court directed that this proceeding be converted from a habeas corpus proceeding into a proceeding for judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the CPLR. An Amended Order to Show Cause was issued on January 19, 2007. The Court has since received and reviewed respondent's Answer and Return, including in camera materials, verified on March 2, 2007, as well as the respondent's Letter Memorandum of March 2, 2007. The court has received no Reply thereto from the petitioner.
On October 16, 2002, the petitioner was sentenced in Columbia County Court, as a second
felony offender, to an indeterminate sentence of 3½ to 7 years upon his conviction of the
crime of Attempted Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance 4°. After applying two years
and four months of potentially available good time, the petitioner's conditional release date was
originally established as December 10, 2006. Upon disposition of a Tier III Superintendent's
Hearing in December of 2003, it was recommended that the petitioner lose three months of
potential good time. Upon disposition of a second Tier III Superintendent's Hearing in April of
2005, it was recommended that the petitioner lose an additional one year of good time. Thus, the
total recommended lose of good time resulting from the dispositions of the two Tier III
Superintendent's Hearings was one year and three months.
Several months before the petitioner's originally established conditional release
date the TAC met to review petitioner's file and to recommend the amount of good time behavior
allowance to be granted. On September 22, 2006, the TAC recommended that nine months of
petitioner's tentatively lost good time be restored ". . . because of the mitigating circumstances
where he [petitioner] was unsuitable for programming due to mental health [*2]issues . . . six months is taken due to serious nature of Tier 3's -
drug use. He can request a reconsideration upon successful completion of ART + ASAT. A
current psych. evaluation indicates that he is able to program." The TAC recommendation was
confirmed by the facility superintendent on September 22, 2006, and affirmed by the
commissioner's designee on September 27, 2006. This proceeding ensued.
Good time allowances ". . . may be granted for good behavior and efficient and
willing performance of duties assigned or progress and achievement in an assigned treatment
program, and may be withheld, forfeited or canceled in whole or in part for bad behavior,
violation of institutional rules or failure to perform properly in the duties or program assigned."
Correction Law §803(1)(a). Inmates do not have the right to demand or require the good
time allowances authorized under Correction Law §803 and "[t]he decision of the
commissioner of correctional services as to the granting, withholding, forfeiture, cancellation or
restoration of such allowances shall be final and shall not be reviewable if made in accordance
with law." Correction Law §803(4). See Edwards v. Goord, 26 AD3d 659 and Thomas v. Time Allowance Committee,
4 AD3d 637. Case law suggests that a determination to withhold good time may be
overturned if such determination is found to be irrational. See Burke v. Goord, 273 AD2d
575, app. dis, lv den 95 NY2d 898 and Jones v. Coombe, 269 AD2d 632,
lv den 95 NY2d 755.
In a Time Allowance Committee Review Sheet dated August 16, 2006, correction counselor McCarthy reported that the petitioner ". . . has MPU status for Acad, VOC, ASAT and ART. Subject continues to be unable to attend therapeutic programs per OMH - however working successfully since 2/13/06.'" The TAC subsequently sought a current psychiatric evaluation to determine whether or not the petitioner could attend therapeutic programming in the future. Todd Asselin, a social worker employed by the New York State Office of Mental Health who had been seeing the petitioner on an outpatient basis during the Summer of 2006 consulted with the Director of the OMH Satellite Mental Health Unit at the Clinton Correctional Facility and it was agreed that there was currently no reason why the petitioner could not participate in therapeutic programming. The TAC was so informed by a hand-written note on September 21, 2006, as follows: "Inmate Artis was seen on 8-25-06 by his primary therapist and on 8-31-06 by the medical doctor. Pt reports being fine as long as I take my meds.' Pt currently a mental health level 3 and medication compliant, reporting effectiveness. Does not present with any psychological impairment that would prevent him from programming."
The petitioner maintains that based upon mental health issues he had programming waivers for more than three years in advance of the TAC meeting. According to the petitioner, it was illegal for OMH, or its employees, to provide the TAC with information as to his mental health in the absence of consent.
Where, as here, potentially available good time was recommended lost as the result of the disposition of one or more Tier III Superintendent's Hearings, the TAC's function was to consider whether petitioner's behavior subsequent to the underlying hearings merited restoration of all or part of the lost allowance. See 7 NYCRR §261.3(b) and Pfeifer v. Goord, 272 AD2d 886. It is apparent, that the TAC performed that function in this case. Although the petitioner, who is incarcerated as the result of a drug offense and who had one year and [*3]three months of potentially available good time recommended lost as the result of two drug-related Tier III Superintendent's Hearings, failed to engage in therapeutic programming, the TAC examined his record and recommended the restoration of nine months of good time since mental health issues had rendered the petitioner unsuitable for such programming. Taking into consideration the serious nature of the Tier III violations, however, the TAC nonetheless recommended the withholding of six months of potentially available good time after having been informed that the petitioner was then currently able to engage in ART and AST programming. Whatever remedies the petitioner may have with respect to the alleged breach of medical confidentiality, the Court finds no basis to conclude that the TAC failed to perform in its proper function or that its limited restoration of petitioner's good time was irrational.
Based upon all of the above, it is, therefore, the decision of the Court and it is hereby
ADJUDGED, that the petition is dismissed.
Dated:June 14 , 2007 at
Indian Lake, New York.__________________________
S. Peter Feldstein
Acting Supreme Court Justice
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.
