McNulty v. Chinlund
| Decision Date | 07 May 1981 |
| Citation | 438 N.Y.S.2d 734,108 Misc.2d 707 |
| Parties | John J. McNULTY, Jr., Sheriff of Albany County et al., Plaintiffs, v. Stephen CHINLUND, Chairman and Dorothy Wadsworth and Joseph Wasser, Commissioners, Constituting the New York State Commission on Corrections, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
McGovern, Kehoe, Mitchell & Kelleher, Troy, for plaintiffs; Peter R. Kehoe, Troy, of counsel.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. of N. Y., Albany, Mary E. Bisantz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Albany, of counsel.
William E. Hellerstein, New York City, amicus curiae, Legal Aid Society Prisoner's Rights Project.
This is a motion by the defendants for an order for partial summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint with respect to the issue of the defendants' regulations requiring plaintiffs to initiate a program of contact visitation for prisoners in facilities under their jurisdiction.
In June of 1976, the defendants promulgated, pursuant to Correction Law, Section 45, subd. 6, certain rules and regulations covering six different subject areas concerning county jails one of which involved contact visitation (9 NYCRR, Part 7008).
Plaintiffs, fifty-one county sheriffs of New York State, commenced this action on November 19, 1976 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to those regulations. A preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the regulations is currently in effect, having been granted by order of Hon. Roger J. Miner, Justice of the Supreme Court, 392 N.Y.S.2d 790, as to some of the regulations and extended by the Appellate Division Third Department, 62 A.D.2d 682, 406 N.Y.S.2d 558, as to the other regulations. Defendants then served an answer to the complaint on April 6, 1979 and now make the instant motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of the defendants' regulations requiring plaintiffs to initiate a program of contact visitation for prisoners in facilities under their jurisdiction.
Defendants contend that in light of the decision of the New York Court of Appeals in Cooper et al. v. Morin, 49 N.Y.2d 69, 424 N.Y.S.2d 168, 399 N.E.2d 1188, mot. to reargue den. 49 N.Y.2d 801, 426 N.Y.S.2d 1029, 403 N.E.2d 466 (1979) cert. den. 446 U.S. 984, 100 S.Ct. 2965, 64 L.Ed.2d 840 (1980), there are no longer any triable issues of fact to be decided with respect to the contact visitation regulations.
This Court must agree with the contentions of the defendants. The regulations pertaining to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kozlowski v. Coughlin, 81 Civ. 5886(CES)
...as well.7 Several lower New York courts have recognized Cooper's implications in this regard. See McNulty v. Chinlund, 108 Misc.2d 707, 708, 438 N.Y.S.2d 734, 736 (Sup. Ct.1981) (no rational basis for denying contact visitation privileges mandated in Cooper to sentenced prisoners); Bugliaro......
-
Kozlowski v. Coughlin
...a number of lower New York courts extended the right recognized in Cooper to convicted prisoners. See McNulty v. Chinlund, 108 Misc.2d 707, 438 N.Y.S.2d 734, 736 (Sup.Ct.Alb.Co.1981); Bugliaro v. Wilmot, 108 Misc.2d 425, 437 N.Y.S.2d 551, 553 (Sup.Ct. Chemung Co. 1981). Although McNulty was......
-
McNulty v. Chinlund
...MAHONEY, P. J., and SWEENEY, KANE, CASEY and LEVINE, JJ. MEMORANDUM DECISION. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, 108 Misc.2d 707, 438 N.Y.S.2d 734, at Special Term entered June 2, 1981 in Albany County, which granted defendants' motion for partial summary In June, 1976, defendants......