Young v. Temporary Release Committee of Albion Correctional Facility
| Decision Date | 11 July 1986 |
| Citation | 122 A.D.2d 606,505 N.Y.S.2d 279 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Application of Vanessa D. YOUNG, Respondent, v. TEMPORARY RELEASE COMMITTEE OF ALBION CORRECTIONAL FACILITY and Albany Central Office, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Albany, by Peter Sullivan and Charles Steinman, Buffalo, for appellants.
Ellen M. Yacknin, Buffalo, for respondent.
Before DILLON, P.J., and CALLAHAN, DENMAN, GREEN and PINE, JJ.
Petitioner, while an inmate at the Albion Correctional Facility, was terminated from the work release program for failing to report to her designated furlough residence and failing to observe her assigned curfew. Special Term erred in directing respondents to hold a new temporary release revocation hearing to allow petitioner to call witnesses on her behalf. The record reveals that petitioner failed to request any witnesses at the temporary release revocation hearing, or at the superintendent's hearing which preceded it (see, 7 NYCRR 254.5[a]; cf. 7 NYCRR 1904.2[b] ) and thereby waived her claim (see, Matter of Geddes v. Wilmot, 111 A.D.2d 474, 475, 488 N.Y.S.2d 855; Matter of Guzman v. Coughlin, 90 A.D.2d 666, 456 N.Y.S.2d 447; Matter of Hicks v. LeFevre, 59 A.D.2d 423, 425-426, 399 N.Y.S.2d 928). Accordingly, we need not reach petitioner's constitutional claims. We note, however, that participation in a temporary release program is a privilege (Correction Law § 855[9] ) and that the scope of judicial review is limited to whether respondents violated any statutory requirement or whether respondents' determination was affected by irrationality bordering on impropriety; we find neither is the case here (see, Matter of Gonzalez v. Wilson, 106 A.D.2d 386, 482 N.Y.S.2d 302).
Order unanimously reversed on the law and petition dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quartararo v. Catterson, 93-CV-4059 (JS).
...requirement" or whether its "determination was affected by irrationality bordering on impropriety...." Young v. Temporary Release Comm., 122 A.D.2d 606, 505 N.Y.S.2d 279, 280 (4th Dep't), appeal denied, 68 N.Y.2d 611, 508 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 501 N.E.2d 601 (1986). Accordingly, the Court conclude......
-
McNamara v. Coughlin
...885, 564 N.Y.S.2d 816, app. den. 77 N.Y.2d 807, 569 N.Y.S.2d 611, 572 N.E.2d 52; Matter of Young v. Temporary Release Committee of Albion Correctional Facility, 122 A.D.2d 606, 505 N.Y.S.2d 279 [4th Dept.1986], app. den. 68 N.Y.2d 611, 508 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 501 N.E.2d 601 It is impossible on t......
-
Roucchio v. Coughlin
...determination affected by irrationality. Thus, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition (see, Matter of Young v. Temporary Release Comm., 122 A.D.2d 606, 505 N.Y.S.2d 279; Matter of Gonzalez v. Wilson, 106 A.D.2d 386, 482 N.Y.S.2d We have considered the petitioner's remaining conte......
-
Gomez v. Obot
...determination was not irrational and, therefore, it will not be disturbed (see generally, Matter of Young v. Temporary Release Comm. of Albion corr. Facility, 122 A.D.2d 606, 505 N.Y.S.2d 279, appeal denied 68 N.Y.2d 611, 508 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 501 N.E.2d 601). (Article 78 Proceeding Transferre......