Opinion
Index No. 2020/53903
03-24-2021
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. LISA NAPOLI on behalf of AMIN LABORIEL, Petitioner, v. ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, Acting Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision; ANA ENRIGHT, Deputy Commissioner of Community Supervision; and EDWARD BURNETT, Superintendent of Fishkill Correctional Facility, Respondents.
Unpublished Opinion
DECISION & ORDER & JUDGMENT
HON. MICHAEL G. HAYES, A.J.S.C.
The Court read and considered the following documents upon this Petition:
PAPERS NUMBERED
Amended Order to Show Cause...........
Verified Petition ................
Memorandum of Law................
Affidavit. ....................
Emails...........................
Exhibits.........................
Affirmation and Return................
Exhibits.........................
Verified Reply.......................
Exhibits.........................
Amin Laboriel was convicted of a Criminal Sexual Act in the Second Degree, in violation of Penal Law §130.45(1). The Relator engaged in sexual act with a 10 year old child. Relator received a sentence of 3 years imprisonment and 5 years of post-release supervision.
Petitioner was designated a level two sex offender pursuant to the New York State Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law Article 6-C).
Relator maintains that he has reached the maximum expiration date of his sentence on July 2, 2020.
Because Relator's convictions involved a victim under the age of eighteen, Executive Law §259-c(14) (hereinafter the Sexual Assault Reform Act, or "SARA") mandates that, as a condition of Relator's post-release supervision, Relator is prohibited from living within 1,000 feet of any public or private elementary, parochial, intermediate, junior high, vocational, or high school (see Penal Law §70.45 [3]).
Relator has not been able to obtain SARA-compliant housing as required by the special condition of Relator's release to post-release supervision. As a result, Relator was not released on his conditional release or maximum expiration dates. On June 30, 2020, two days before Relator's maximum expiration date, he was transferred to the residential treatment facility ("RTF") at Fishkill Correctional Facility, pending his release to SARA-compliant housing.
Relator now seeks habeas corpus relief on the grounds, inter alia, that the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("the Department") is unlawfully keeping him in custody after his maximum expiration date without releasing him to post-release supervision ("PRS"). Relator maintains that the Department is required to assist in the process of finding suitable housing for sex offenders. To this end, Relator's counsel states that he is entitled to be released to a New York City shelter since the City is required by law to provide him with a SARA-complaint bed upon demand. Relator also asserts that the Department does not have the statutory authority to place him at the Fishkill RTF more than six months after his prison term has expired, and that his placement at the Fishkill RTF cannot be deemed to have restored him to post-release supervision. Finally, Relator asserts that the Fishkill RTF does not qualify as an RTF because it is not a community-based residence, Relator is housed with the general prison population and Relator receives no education, training or employment. Relator indicates that there is no difference between Fishkill's inmates and the RTF's "detainees".
The Department opposes this application on the grounds, Inter alia, that the habeas relief is not available because the petitioner is not entitled to immediate release. Relator has not identified appropriate housing that is compliant with SARA. Therefore, the Department cannot release the Relator until he has secured appropriate housing. The Department also asserts that Correction Law §73 expressly authorizes the Commissioner to use an RTF as a residence for a person who is on post-release supervision, not only during the first six months, but during the entire term of community supervision, whenever an individual on PRS lacks a SARA-compliant residence. The Department also disputes Relator's claim that the Fishkill RTF is not a legitimate RTF.
DISCUSSION
CPLR §7002(a) authorizes a habeas corpus petition by a person illegally imprisoned or otherwise restrained in his liberty within the state.
A petition for habeas corpus relief is an extraordinary remedy, and its use has been limited to cases of special urgency, leaving more conventional remedies for cases in which restraints on liberty are neither severe nor immediate (see Hensley v. Municipal Ct., 411 U.S. 345 [1973]).
Habeas corpus will lie only when the petitioner is entitled to immediate release (see People ex rel. Kaplan v. Commissioner of Correction of City of N.Y., 60 N.Y.2d 648 [1983]; People ex rel. Cassar v. Margiotta, 150 A.D.3d 1254 [2nd Dept 2017]; People ex rel. Russell v. Artuz, 265 A.D.2d 512 [2nd Dept 1999]; People ex rel. Duamutef v. Dalsheim, 211 A.D.2d 835 [2nd Dept 1995]; Matter of Hall v. Coughlin, 141 A.D.2d 728 [2nd Dept 1988]; People ex rel. Richards v. Reid, 117 A.D.2d 695 [2nd Dept 1986]; People ex rel. Knowles v. Scully, 101 A.D.2d 895 [2nd Dept 1984]).
Here, even if the Relator were able to establish that Fishkill does not satisfy the statutory requirements for a residential treatment facility, he would not be entitled to immediate release, as he had not identified SARA-compliant housing (People ex rel. Lucien v. Superintendent, Fishkill Correctional Facility, 190 A.D.3d 863 [2nd Dept 2021]). Rather, at most he would be entitled to a transfer to a different residential treatment facility.
The Relator is subject to the provisions of SARA, and therefore, while on PRS he is prohibited from residing within 1,000 feet of a school or any other facility or institution primarily used for the care or treatment of persons under the age of eighteen (see Executive Law § 259-c[14]; Penal Law § 220.00 [14]) . Inasmuch as the Relator had been unable to find SARA-compliant housing by his maximum expiration date, pursuant to Penal Law §70.45(3), the Department was permitted to require him to spend the first six months of his PRS in Fishkill, a residential treatment facility.
After the expiration of the six-month period, when the Relator had still not identified SARA-complaint housing pursuant to Correction Law §73(10), the Department has the authority to provide housing to him at Fishkill until such time that he locates SARA-complaint housing (see People ex rel. McCurdy v. Warden, Westchester County Correctional Facility, 2020 NY Slip Op 06933, 2020 WL 6828846 [2020]).
Based upon the foregoing, the request for habeas corpus relief is inappropriate, and the petition must be dismissed (People ex rel. Lucien v. Superintendent, Fishkill Correctional Facility, 190 A.D.3d 863 [2nd Dept 2021]).
The Relator's remaining claims, including his demand for conversion of the Petition to a hybrid Article 78, are without merit, therefore, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Petition is dismissed. The foregoing constitutes the Decision, Order, and Judgment of this Court.