Bowen v. State Com'n of Correction

• Decision Date: 20 December 1984
• Citation: 104 A.D.2d 238,484 N.Y.S.2d 210
• Parties: In the Matter of James D. BOWEN, as Sheriff of Saratoga County, et al., Respondents, v. STATE COMMISSION OF CORRECTION of the State of New York et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 210

484 N.Y.S.2d 210

104 A.D.2d 238

In the Matter of James D. BOWEN, as Sheriff of Saratoga County, et al., Respondents, v. STATE COMMISSION OF CORRECTION of the State of New York et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

Dec. 20, 1984.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Albany (Nancy A. Spiegel, Asst. Atty. Gen., and William J. Kogan, Albany, of counsel), for appellants.

LeRoy T. Walbridge, County Atty., Ballston Spa, for respondents.

Before MAHONEY, P.J., and KANE, CASEY, WEISS and LEVINE, JJ.

LEVINE, Justice.

Petitioners, the County of Saratoga and its Sheriff, brought the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul a determination of the State Commission of Correction (the commission) denying their request for a 90-day variance for the Saratoga County Jail from a commission regulation (9 NYCRR 7040.4) prohibiting the double-celling of prisoners. There had been two previous such requests for a temporary variance in 1982, the first of which was granted by the commission and the second of which, after an on-site investigation by commission staff, was denied. However, that denial was set aside and the temporary variance was granted by Special Term in a previous proceeding (Matter of Bowen v. State Comm. of Correction, 118 Misc.2d 792, 461 N.Y.S.2d 668). The commission's appeal from that determination was never perfected. The instant application for a further temporary extension of the previous variances was made by the Sheriff on September 1, 1983. A commission meeting on the request was scheduled for September 30, 1983, during which the commission heard from the same staff person that previously inspected the facility and received her written report of an on-site visit on September 28 and September 29. At the conclusion of the meeting, the commission voted to deny the request and notified the Sheriff of its decision by letter dated October 14, 1983. Once more, petitioners sought judicial review. This appeal followed when Special Term again annulled the commission's denial of the request and granted the variance. 124 Misc.2d 592, 477 N.Y.S.2d 961.

The judgment must be reversed since none of the grounds relied upon by Special Term is sufficient to justify annulment. The first and primary ground invoked by the court was that the commission's failure to give petitioners notice of the September 30 meeting and an opportunity to be heard violated their due process rights. Petitioners' application both before the commission and in the instant proceeding entirely involves their governmental function of operating the Saratoga County Jail. As such, they stand in the position of a political subdivision of the State and cannot claim rights under the Constitution against State action (Village of Herkimer v. Axelrod, 58 N.Y.2d 1069, 1071, 462 N.Y.S.2d 633, 449 N.E.2d 413). As stated by the United States Supreme Court, "A municipal corporation, created by a state * * * has no privileges or immunities under the federal constitution which it may invoke in opposition to the will of its creator" (Williams v. Mayor, 289 U.S. 36, 40, 53 S.Ct. 431, 432, 77 L.Ed. 1015 ). Nor did the failure to give notice and to hold a hearing constitute a violation of statute or regulation, since neither is required under the Correction Law or the applicable regulation (9 NYCRR 7050; see Matter of Fink v. Cole, 1 N.Y.2d 48, 51-52, 150 N.Y.S.2d 175, 133 N.E.2d 691). The commission, in exercising its discretion to grant or deny the request for a variance, was acting in its administrative and not quasi-judicial capacity and, therefore, no formal hearing or record of its findings was required (Matter of Older v. Board of Educ., Union Free School Dist. No. 1, Town of Mamaroneck, 27 N.Y.2d 333, 337, 318 N.Y.S.2d 129, 266 N.E.2d 812).

Alternatively, Special Term held that annulment was required on the ground that the failure of the commission to give at least one week's public notice of the September 30, 1983 meeting violated the notice requirements of the Open Meetings...