Opinion
02-05-2015
In the Matter of the Application of Shawn CAMPBELL, Petitioner, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, v. Cheryl MORRIS, Director of Ministerial, Family & Volunteer Services & Anthony Annucci, Acting Commissioner of New York State DOCCS, Respondents.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of New York State, Attorney for Shawn Campbell. Melissa A. Latino, Assistant Attorney General, of Counsel, Department of Law, The Capitol, Albany, Attorney for Respondent.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of New York State, Attorney for Shawn Campbell.
Melissa A. Latino, Assistant Attorney General, of Counsel, Department of Law, The Capitol, Albany, Attorney for Respondent.
MICHAEL H. MELKONIAN, J. Petitioner Shawn Campbell, a correctional inmate, challenges respondent's denial of his grievance regarding the denial of his application to participate in the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) family reunion program (FRP).
Petitioner is currently serving an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment of 25 years to life upon his conviction of the crimes of Murder in the second degree and Burglary in the first degree. During this period of incarceration, he has married three different women. He applied to participate in the FRP, whereby selected inmates are given the opportunity to meet privately with family members for an extended period of time (see, 7 NYCRR § 220.1 ), with his third wife. His application was disapproved and he was informed that, “[r]ecords indicate that you married your third wife, Christine Campbell, on May 22, 2012, divorced your second wife, Catherine Campbell on, October 18, 2011; and divorced your first wife, Tisha Campbell, on October 20, 2009. As such, this marriage/family ties, has not been disrupted as a result of your incarceration. Three marriages to three different women in a relatively short period of time does not show a commitment to preserving, enhancing or strengthening family ties. It is also noted that visiting records indicate a visit from your first wife, Tisha Campbell as recent as August 9, 2014. This may indicate a lack of commitment to your current wife.” After exhausting administrative remedies, petitioner commenced the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination as irrational.
“The Family Reunion Program is designed to provide selected inmates and their families the opportunity to meet for an extended period of time in privacy. The goal of the program is to preserve, enhance and strengthen family ties that have been disrupted as a result of incarceration.” 7 NYCRR § 220.1.
An inmate's participation in the FRP is a privilege, not a right (Bierenbaum v. Goord, 13 A.D.3d 945, 787 N.Y.S.2d 438 ; Mercer v. Goord, 258 A.D.2d 960, 685 N.Y.S.2d 505, leave denied 93 N.Y.2d 812, 695 N.Y.S.2d 541, 717 N.E.2d 700 ). “... [T]he administrative decision process determining whether a particular prisoner shall be allowed to participate in the FRP is ‘heavily discretionary’ ... and ... the Department [of Correctional Services] must consider and balance a number of delineated factors, including the prisoner's security classification, his behavioral history and the nature of his underlying conviction ...” (Georgiou v. Daniel, 21 A.D.3d 1230, 1231, 801 N.Y.S.2d 421 [citations omitted] ). A decision denying an inmate's application to participate in the FRP will not be disturbed if supported by a rational basis (Williamson v. Nuttall, 35 A.D.3d 926, 825 N.Y.S.2d 802 ).
Here, the Department of Correctional Services properly considered the various factors outlined in 7 NYCRR § 220.2 during the special review process (see, generally, Matter of Georgiou v. Daniel, 21 A.D.3d 1230, 801 N.Y.S.2d 421 ), but denied petitioner's application based upon the fact that, inter alia, petitioner married his third wife during petitioner's period of incarceration. Inasmuch as petitioner's family ties have been not been “disrupted as a result of incarceration” (Couser v. Goord, 1 A.D.3d 663, 766 N.Y.S.2d 461 ), the Court cannot conclude that respondents' determination was irrational.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, and the relief requested therein is in all respects denied.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. This Decision and Order is returned to the Attorney General. All other papers are delivered to the Supreme Court Clerk for transmission to the County Clerk. The signing of this Decision and Order shall not constitute entry or filing under CPLR 2220. Counsel is not relieved from the applicable provisions of this rule with regard to filing, entry and Notice of Entry. This memorandum constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
SO ORDERED.