Opinion
531959
04-01-2021
The PEOPLE of the State of New York EX REL. Scharkey JAMES, Appellant, v. William KEYSER, as Superintendent of Sullivan Correctional Facility, Respondent.
Scharkey James, Fallsburg, appellant pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany ( Frank Brady of counsel), for respondent.
Scharkey James, Fallsburg, appellant pro se.
Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany ( Frank Brady of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Clark, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Schick, J.), entered August 5, 2020 in Sullivan County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.
Petitioner is an inmate at Sullivan Correctional Facility (hereinafter SCF) serving a prison sentence of 22 years to life upon his conviction of robbery in the first degree and another crime, and is eligible for parole in 2034 ( People v. James, 170 A.D.3d 477, 96 N.Y.S.3d 36 [2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1070, 105 N.Y.S.3d 7, 129 N.E.3d 327 [2019] ). In May 2020, petitioner filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus seeking his immediate release from SCF asserting that his underlying health conditions place him at increased risk if infected with the novel coronavirus responsible for causing COVID–19. Respondent moved to dismiss, submitting an affidavit detailing the protocols and policies in place at SCF to address the spread of COVID–19 as of July 7, 2020. Supreme Court granted the motion and denied the application on the merits, based upon People ex rel. Carroll v. Keyser, 184 A.D.3d 189, 125 N.Y.S.3d 484 (2020). Petitioner appeals.
We have reviewed the individual facts unique to petitioner's circumstances, i.e., relative to his age and physical condition. Upon consideration, we find that petitioner has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his detention at SCF was illegal or unconstitutional ( see CPLR 7002[a] ; 7010[a]; People ex rel. Carroll v. Keyser, 184 A.D.3d at 192–193, 125 N.Y.S.3d 484 ; People ex rel. Ferro v. Brann, 183 A.D.3d 758, 758, 121 N.Y.S.3d 658 [2020] ). The basis of this determination is set forth in ( People ex rel. Figueroa v. Keyser, ––– A.D.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, 2021 WL 1215918 [decided herewith]) relative to both petitioner's Eighth Amendment claim and his substantive due process claim, and we adopt that analysis here. Petitioner's remaining claims have been examined and none establishes the illegality of his incarceration or his entitlement to immediate release ( see People ex rel. Brown v. New York State Div. of Parole, 70 N.Y.2d 391, 398, 521 N.Y.S.2d 657, 516 N.E.2d 194 [1987] ; People ex rel. Kaplan v. Commissioner of Correction of City of N.Y., 60 N.Y.2d 648, 649, 467 N.Y.S.2d 566, 454 N.E.2d 1309 [1983] ). Accordingly, we find that Supreme Court properly denied the application.
Petitioner reportedly filed a grievance in April 2020 challenging the conditions of his confinement and the COVID-related protocols, which is not before us, and any challenge to the administrative determination must be raised in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 ( see
Garry, P.J., Lynch, Clark, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
Jones v. State of New York, 171 A.D.3d 1362, 1364, 98 N.Y.S.3d 366 [2019], appeal dismissed 33 N.Y.3d 1056, 103 N.Y.S.3d 350, 127 N.E.3d 308 [2019] ). Likewise, petitioner's arguments addressing factors relevant to discretionary or medical parole release are not properly raised in a proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus ( see Executive Law §§ 259–i[2][c] ; 259–s).