Matter of New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision v Dubois

[*1] Matter of New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision v Dubois 2022 NY Slip Op 22275 Decided on August 31, 2022 Supreme Court, Orange County Brown, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on August 31, 2022
Supreme Court, Orange County

In the Matter of the Application of New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Petitioner-Complainant,

For Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 and
§3001 of the Civil Pracitce Law and Rules

against

Carl E. Dubois, in his official capacity as
Orange County Sheriff, and the Orange County Sheriff's Office, Respondents-Defendants.



Index No. EF002361-2022


HEATHER S. ODOM, ESQ.
Assistant Counsel to the Board of Parole
Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision
Attorney for Petitioner-Complainant
The Harriman State Campus
1220 Washington Avenue
Albany, New York 122226

RICHARD B. GOLDEN, COUNTY ATTORNEY
FOR ORANGE COUNTY
By: Anthony F. Cardoso, Esq.
Attorney for Respondents-Defendants
255-275 Main Street
Goshen, New York 10924 Craig Stephen Brown, J.

Petitioner-Complainant New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS") moves for:

1) a declaratory judgment finding that the Respondents-Defendants' failure to transport and produce individuals being held in their custody (hereinafter "releasees"), as a result of a Securing Order brought forward after the issuance of a Parole Revocation Warrant, to their scheduled Parole Revocation Hearings is unlawful; and

2) an order compelling the Respondents-Defendants to promptly transport and produce all releasees within their custody and control to their scheduled Parole Revocation Hearings upon notice by the Petitioner-Complainant.

The Court notes that the requests for relief by the Petitioner-Complainant with respect to individual releasees were either withdrawn by the Petitioner-Complainant or are moot.

The following papers were read:
Order to Show Cause - Heather S. Odom, Esq.'s Affirmation 1 - 3
in Support - Annexed Exhibits
Anthony F. Cardoso, Esq.'s Affirmation in Opposition - 4
Affidavit of Dennis Barry - Affidavit of James Monroe, Esq. -
Memorandum of Law
Reply Affirmation of Heather S. Odom, Esq. - Annexed Exhibits 5 - 6

Upon the foregoing papers the Petitioner-Complainant's application is granted to the extent that it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Orange County Sheriff shall transport and produce all releasees within their custody and control to their scheduled Parole Revocation Hearings when directed to do so by an Orange County Court Judge or Acting Orange County Court Judge with jurisdiction over the releasee. All other requested relief is denied.

In the instant matter, petitioner-complainant DOCCS seeks, inter alia, to require the Orange County Sheriff to transport releasees to Parole Revocation Hearings at any place designated by DOCCS, at any date and time directed by DOCCS, and for as many times as desired by DOCCS. Executive Law Section 259-i was amended, effective March 1, 2022, to prohibit the holding of final revocation hearings at a "correctional facility, detention center or local correctional facility" (Executive Law Section 259-i[3][f][i]). As a result, DOCCS now wants the Orange County Sheriff to transport parolees at the Orange County Correctional Facility to and from locations selected by DOCCS, including out-of-county locations, merely upon notice by or at the direction of DOCCS.

Respondent-defendant Orange County Sheriff opposes the relief sought by DOCCS. The Orange County Sheriff argues, inter alia, that DOCCS does not have the authority to unilaterally [*2]direct the Orange County Sheriff to transport releasees to and from Parole Revocation Hearings. The Court agrees. Granting DOCCS such broad, unfettered authority over the Orange County Sheriff is without legal basis. Further, it would disrupt the normal day-to-day operations of the Sheriff's Office and "compromise security within the County" (Affidavit of Chief Deputy Sheriff Dennis Barry, paragraphs 9-10). As stated by Chief Barry, "Regardless of the number of parolees on any given day, constantly tying up limited Deputy resources every week to transport parolees to Westchester County for hearings would be an incredible hardship on the functioning of the Sheriff's Office and the protection of the public of Orange County. Even one parolee would take 1/3 of the available workforce on a given day out of commission in another county for a substantial period of time, if not the entire shift" (Affidavit of Chief Deputy Sheriff Dennis Barry, paragraph 10).

The Court is well aware that the Sheriff is responsible to transport newly sentenced defendants and parole violators to State correctional facilities (see Broome County v. State, 152 AD2d 160 [3rd Dept., 1989]). However, in the matter sub judice, the persons being transported are neither newly sentenced defendants nor parole violators. Rather, they are releasees who have not yet been found to have violated parole and, in fact, may not have violated parole. Enlarging the authority of DOCCS to permit it to order the Sheriff to transport releasees to any location that DOCCS desires and as many times as DOCCS desires is unwarranted. The authority to issue such directives to the Sheriff lies with the Courts, not DOCCS. Accordingly, the Petitioner-complainant's application may be granted only to the extent that the Orange County Sheriff shall comply with those directives to transport releasees which are issued by a judge or justice having jurisdiction over the releasee.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision, Order, and Judgement of this Court.

So Ordered.Dated: August 31, 2022
Goshen, New York
HON. CRAIG STEPHEN BROWN
Acting Supreme Court Justice