People ex rel. Manekos v. Noble

• Decision Date: 14 September 1960
• Citation: 207 N.Y.S.2d 501,26 Misc.2d 460
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. George MANEKOS, Relator, v. Henry NOBLE, Warden of the Penitentiary of the City of New York, Rikers Island, New York, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 501

207 N.Y.S.2d 501

26 Misc.2d 460

PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. George MANEKOS, Relator, v. Henry NOBLE, Warden of the Penitentiary of the City of New York, Rikers Island, New York, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County, Part I.

Sept. 14, 1960.

Greenberg & Landy, Brooklyn, for petitioner.

Isidore Dollinger, Dist. Atty., Bronx County, New York City. Bertram R. Gelfand, Asst. Dist. Atty., New York City, of counsel, for Henry Noble, Warden.

THOMAS C. CHIMERA, Justice.

The issue concerns itself with a period of eight days spent by relator in the Raymond Street Jail subsequent to relator's conviction and sentence and prior to his transfer to the penitentiary on Rikers Island. He was sentenced to a one year term. Both institutions are under the supervision and control of the New York City Department of Correction.

In his calculations the defendant Warden gives no credit for this period assuming it to be lost to relator. He reasons that it is neither jail time served before a conviction (Penal Law, § 2193), nor part of the term of imprisonment as defined in Section 231 of the Correction Law which 'shall begin on the date of his * * * actual incarceration in a * * * penitentiary.' The District Attorney agrees with the Warden that there is no specific statutory provision for allowing the credit but states on the record that it has been the policy of his office not to oppose the granting of such credit by the court. I think the courts should not be content to wrest a man's right to freedom from incarceration on transient policy.

Obviously the eight days involved here may not be credited to jail time pursuant to Section 2193 of the Penal Law, because this statute deals only with commitment prior to sentence. Nor does Section 231 of the Correction Law foreclose the right of this relator to be so credited. That statute does not concern itself with credit for time actually served at all.

Section 231, supra, must be read in connection with the entire Article 9 of which it is only a part. The article establishes a 'blueprint' by which the Warden is authorized to make 'Discretionary Reductions Of Sentences'. The section establishes the perimeter of the period to be considered by the warden and nothing else.

The rationale for allowing the credit does not rest on the express language of these statutes, but on the spirit of them which in justice seeks to acknowledge time already served and in mercy provides for shortening the period of...