McNulty v. Chinlund
| Decision Date | 15 June 1978 |
| Citation | 62 A.D.2d 682,406 N.Y.S.2d 558 |
| Parties | John J. McNULTY, Jr., as Sheriff of Albany County, et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Stephen CHINLUND et al., Constituting the New York State Commission of Correction, Appellants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Peter R. Kehoe, Troy, for respondents-appellants.
William E. Hellerstein, Michael B. Mushlin and Nancy Lee, New York City, for The Legal Aid Society Prisoners' Rights Project, amicus curiae.
David Rudenstine, for New York Civil Liberties Union, New York City, amicus curiae.
Before MAHONEY, P. J., and SWEENEY, STALEY, LARKIN and HERLIHY, JJ.
OPINION FOR MODIFICATION
In this action for a declaratory judgment, 51 County Sheriffs seek to enjoin the enforcement of parts 7004, 7008, 7023, 7024, 7025 and 7026 of the regulations of the New York State Commission of Correction which concern prisoner correspondence, visitation, access to media, religion, packages and printed materials, and publications. These regulations, adopted pursuant to section 45 (subd. 6) of the Correction Law, were filed June 16, 1976, effective October 1, 1976, and the text of the regulations is set forth in title 9 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York.
The complaint alleges that the duty to maintain and control the county jail and the inmates confined therein is vested in the Sheriff by section 13 of article XIII of the New York State Constitution, and by section 500-c of the Correction Law and section 217 of the County Law, and that, therefore, the Commission's rules and regulations are unconstitutional in that they transfer that duty from a constitutional office and an elected local officer to non-local, appointed officers.
It is further alleged that section 45 (subd. 6) of the Correction Law, which authorized the Commission of Correction to "promulgate rules and regulations establishing minimum standards for the care, custody, correction, treatment, supervision, discipline, and other correctional programs for all persons confined in correctional facilities", delegates legislative authority to the commission without setting adequate and sufficient criteria and/or guidelines for such action, and that the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to such authority are, therefore, void. It is also alleged that the rules and regulations are arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, vague, indefinite and imprecise for various stated reasons, and that the rules and regulations are not minimum standards but, rather, detailed, extensive and comprehensive instructions and directives pertaining to every day administration of county jails which are void because the Commission has acted in excess of its authority under subdivision 6 of section 45 of the Correction Law.
It is finally alleged that the Commission, in promulgating the rules and regulations, did not comply with section 205 of the State Administrative Procedure Act, making the rules and regulations invalid.
Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from enforcing the rules and regulations, and defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Special Term granted plaintiffs' motion as to the rules and regulations pertaining to contact visitation, religion and access to media, and granted defendants' motion with respect to the remaining rules and regulations challenged.
Section 13 of article XIII of the New York State Constitution clearly declares sheriffs to be local constitutional officers, but it does not define their powers, duties or functions, nor place them in control of county jails. Section 650 of the County Law provides that the .
Local governments are authorized to contract indebtedness for the maintenance of correctional facilities by section 1 of article VIII of the New York State Constitution, and section 217 of the County Law requires each county to "continue to maintain a county jail as prescribed by law".
Section 500-c of the Correction Law provides that:
(e)ach sheriff * * * shall have custody of the county jails and shall receive and safely keep, in the county jail of his county, every person lawfully committed to his custody for safekeeping, examination or trial, imprisonment therein, or committed for contempt. * * * All persons confined in a county jail or penitentiary shall, as far as practicable, be kept separate from each other, and shall be allowed to converse with their counsel, or religious adviser, under such reasonable regulations and restrictions as the keeper of the jail may fix. Convicts under sentence shall not be allowed to converse with any other person, except in the presence of a keeper. The keeper may prevent all other conversations by any other prisoner in the jail when he shall deem it necessary and proper.
Section 500-d of the Correction Law provides for food and labor, and authorizes the purchase by prisoners detained for trial of any other proper articles of food.
Section 500-e requires the keeper to provide a bible in each room of the jail, and to cause divine service to be conducted for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marcera v. Chinlund
...administrators of the jails, and they secured a state court injunction against enforcement of the regulations. McNulty v. Chinlund, 62 A.D.2d 682, 406 N.Y.S.2d 558 (3d Dep't 1978), Aff'g 89 Misc.2d 713, 392 N.Y.S.2d 790 (Sup.Ct., Albany Co. 1977). In November 1976, shortly after the Correct......
-
Cooper v. Lombard
...be permitted (9 NYCRR 7008.2(b), 7008.6). While the implementation of part 7008 has been preliminarily enjoined (see McNulty v. Chinlund, App.Div., 406 N.Y.S.2d 558, decided June 15, 1978), it is noteworthy that in McNulty prisoners were not parties to the action and the court did not addre......
-
Burke v. Warren County Sheriff's Dept.
...796 (1993); New York State Comm'n of Correction v. Ruffo, 157 A.D.2d 987, 988, 550 N.Y.S.2d 746, 747 (1990); McNulty v. Chinlund, 62 A.D.2d 682, 686, 406 N.Y.S.2d 558, 560 (1978). Thus, even if the plaintiff could prove that the camera's disfunction caused the suicide, the sheriff would not......
-
Ayers v. Coughlin
...them in a way that conflicts with or alters, as here, an unambiguously imposed legislative obligation ( see, McNulty v. Chinlund, 62 A.D.2d 682, 688, 406 N.Y.S.2d 558; see also, Servomation Corp. v. State Tax Commn., 51 N.Y.2d 608, 612, 435 N.Y.S.2d 686, 416 N.E.2d 1022). For these reasons ......