Miner v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services

• Decision Date: 19 September 1984
• Citation: 125 Misc.2d 594,479 N.Y.S.2d 703
• Parties: In the Matter of the Application of Robert F. MINER, Jr., Petitioner, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 703

479 N.Y.S.2d 703

125 Misc.2d 594

In the Matter of the Application of Robert F. MINER, Jr., Petitioner For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, v.NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Dutchess County.

Sept. 19, 1984.

Robert F. Miner, Jr., pro se.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. by James Gardner Ryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Poughkeepsie, for respondent.

LUCILLE POLK BUELL, Justice.

In this proceeding pursuant to CPLR Article 78, petitioner seeks to sidestep the forfeiture provisions of Civil Rights Law Section 79-a by utilizing a novel approach: a proxy marriage performed in Kansas after his incarceration.Petitioner seeks an order annulling respondent's determination not to recognize petitioner's proxy marriage as valid for the purpose of participating in the Department of Correctional Services' Family Reunion Program, directing respondent to recognize petitioner's proxy marriage as valid for the purpose of participating in said program and to permit petitioner and his spouse to participate in conjugal visitation under the auspices of the Family Reunion Program.

Respondent moves to dismiss the petition upon the ground that petitioner is incapable of marrying and is civilly dead as he is serving a life sentence of imprisonment (Civil Rights Law § 79-a) and thus has not satisfied the necessary criteria for participation in the Family Reunion Program.

On March 22, 1984, petitioner, an inmate at Green Haven Correctional Facility, serving a life sentence of imprisonment, executed a "Limited Power of Attorney for Proxy Marriage" appointing one Michael Foster as petitioner's agent for the purpose of entering into a marriage.

On March 30, 1984, petitioner, through his attorney in fact, married one Laurie Marion in Sedgwick County, Kansas.

Petitioner was informed by letter dated May 18, 1984 from the Southern Area Coordinator of Ministerial and Family Services for the Department of Correctional Services that the Department would not recognize the legality of the marriage for the purpose of petitioner's participation in the Family Reunion Program.Petitioner contends respondent's decision is arbitrary and capricious.

An individual sentenced to imprisonment for life is deemed to be civilly dead and any marital relationship existing at the time of the sentence is terminated.Civil Rights Law § 79-a;SeeMatter of Eric J.B., 92 A.D.2d 917, 460 N.Y.S.2d 133(2nd Dept., 1983);Fuchs v. Fuchs, 104 Misc.2d 1143, 429 N.Y.S.2d 982(S.Ct., SullivanCo., 1980).

Pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Rights Law Section 79-a, the State may constitutionally prohibit individuals sentenced to life imprisonment to marry.Johnson v. Rockefeller, 365 F.Supp. 377(D.C., N.Y., 1973), affirmed415 U.S. 953, 94 S.Ct. 1479, 39 L.Ed.2d 569;Fitzpatrick v. Smith, 90 A.D.2d 974, 456 N.Y.S.2d 902(4th Dept., 1982)affirmed59 N.Y.2d 916, 466 N.Y.S.2d 318, 453 N.E.2d 547(1983), U.S. cert. denied 464 U.S. 963, 104 S.Ct. 399, 78 L.Ed.2d 340, U.S. reh. denied 464 U.S. 1064, 104 S.Ct. 749, 79 L.Ed.2d 205;Muessman v. Ward, 95 Misc.2d 478, 408 N.Y.S.2d 254(S.Ct., QueensCo., 1978).

Petitioner contends that it is respondent's obligation to recognize a proxy marriage that is valid in the State where contracted, as valid in New York.Petitioner's claims are grounded upon the basic premise that he possessed the power to grant an attorney in fact a limited power of attorney to enter into a proxy marriage on petitioner's behalf.

It is a well-settled tenet of the law of agency, that a principal may only do through an agent those things that he may lawfully do personally.Restatement, 2d, Agency § 17;2 N.Y.Jur.2d, Agency§ 17.The agent is merely the principal's instrument and the principal acts by and through the agent.Edwards v. Dooley, 120 N.Y. 540, 24 N.E. 827(1890);Corcoran v. Scolaro, 46 N.Y.S.2d 278(S.Ct., KingsCo., 1943).

If an individual lacks the power to enter into some legal relationship, he lacks the capacity to authorize an agent to enter into that legal relationship on the principal's behalf.Restatement,...