Williams v. Annucci

• Decision Date: 17 December 2020
• Docket Number: 529062
• Parties: In the Matter of Erwin WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

189 A.D.3d 1839
138 N.Y.S.3d 253

In the Matter of Erwin WILLIAMS, Appellant,
v.
Anthony J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

529062

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: November 20, 2020
Decided and Entered: December 17, 2020

138 N.Y.S.3d 254

Erwin Williams, Marcy, appellant pro se.

Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Robert M. Goldfarb of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Clark, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Mackey, J.), entered March 29, 2019 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Superintendent of Mohawk Correctional Facility denying petitioner's grievance.

Petitioner was convicted in 1990 of various crimes, including attempted murder in the second degree, rape in the first degree, assault in the first degree and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, and was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 16 to 50 years. In February 2018, the Director of the Office of Guidance and Counseling for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (hereinafter DOCCS) informed petitioner that, although he had successfully completed sex offender counseling in 2004, it had been determined, pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10, that he would benefit from additional treatment. As such, petitioner, who was housed at Mohawk Correctional Facility at that time, was being transferred to the Office of Mental Health's Sex Offender Counseling and Treatment Program (hereinafter SOCTP) at Marcy Correctional Facility. The Director advised petitioner that a refusal to participate in SOCTP may result in, among other things, a reduction in his pay assignment.

After petitioner refused to participate in SOCTP, he was removed from his porter and recreation aide assignments. He thereafter filed a grievance challenging the SOCTP assignment and seeking the return of his job assignments and rate of pay. The grievance was denied by the Inmate Grievance Resolution Committee, and the denial was upheld by the Superintendent of Mohawk Correctional Facility. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of his grievance.¹ Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and petitioner appeals.

138 N.Y.S.3d 255

We affirm. Mental Hygiene Law article 10, also known as the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (L 2007, ch 7) (hereinafter SOMTA), established "comprehensive reforms to enhance public safety by allowing the [s]tate to continue managing sex offenders upon the expiration of their criminal sentences, either by civilly confining the most dangerous recidivistic sex offenders, or by permitting strict and intensive parole supervision of offenders who pose a lesser risk of harm" (Governor's Program Bill Mem, Bill Jacket, L 2007, ch 7). Correction Law § 622 was added as part of SOMTA (L 2007, ch 7, §...