Summary
In Dooley, the proof established that State-ready inmates had remained in Suffolk County Correctional Facility for months awaiting acceptance by the Department, resulting in a dangerously overcrowded situation at that facility.
Summary of this case from Matter of Ayers v. CoughlinOpinion
November 9, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McCarthy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by adding to the second decretal paragraph thereof, after the words "the date of the inmate's sentencing", the words "unless exigent circumstances which justify a further limited delay are present in a particular case"; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Despite the appellant's statutory duty to accept prisoners sentenced to State custody "forthwith" (CPL 430.20), the record herein establishes that State-ready inmates have remained in the Suffolk County Correctional Facility (hereinafter SCCF) for months awaiting transfer to State facilities and that the resulting excess population in the SCCF has created a dangerously overcrowded situation. The appellant's contention that the department's facilities are also overcrowded does not constitute a justifiable reason for avoiding its legal responsibility (see, Crespo v. Hall, 56 N.Y.2d 856, 858). We find that the record herein supports the court's implicit finding that it is not unreasonable under the circumstances to require the department to meet its obligation within 14 days of sentencing, provided some flexibility remains in appropriate cases (see, County of Nassau v. Cuomo, 121 A.D.2d 428, mod on other grounds 69 N.Y.2d 737).
We reject the appellant's contention that the court should have permitted him to make a record on certain allegedly disputed factual issues since those issues are irrelevant to the appellant's obligation to comply with its statutory duties. Niehoff, J.P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.