Gambadoro v. La Vallee

New York Supreme Court

Gambadoro v. La Vallee

20 Misc. 2d 554, 199 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3825

New York Supreme Court·Decided January 9, 1960·Published

Opinion

Harry E. Schirick, J.

These are applications by three .inmates of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York, to direct the Warden to permit them to confer with their attorney privately “ within sight, but outside of hearing ” of a prison guard.

• On August; 11,1959 petitioners’ attorney wrote to the Warden asking permission to interview a total of 34 prisoners. She has been permitted- to interview the petitioners but the Warden has insisted mpon having a guard present in the room “ in order to insure-against any impropriety or infraction of prison rules and regulations during the interview.”

. The prisoners are confined pursuant to sentences imposed upon’ their respective convictions. Their right to confer with counsel-after conviction is not absolute but must be subject to such- regulations as the Commissioner of Correction may prescribe pursuant to section 146 of the Correction Law (Matter [555]*555of Hughes v. Cashin, 184 Misc. 757; Matter of Mummiani v. La Vallee, 21 Misc 2d 415).

The court finds no impropriety in the regulations here enforced.

The applications are dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Harry E. Schirick, J.

These are applications by three .inmates of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York, to direct the Warden to permit them to confer with their attorney privately “ within sight, but outside of hearing ” of a prison guard.

• On August; 11,1959 petitioners’ attorney wrote to the Warden asking permission to interview a total of 34 prisoners. She has been permitted- to interview the petitioners but the Warden has insisted mpon having a guard present in the room “ in order to insure-against any impropriety or infraction of prison rules and regulations during the interview.”

. The prisoners are confined pursuant to sentences imposed upon’ their respective convictions. Their right to confer with counsel-after conviction is not absolute but must be subject to such- regulations as the Commissioner of Correction may prescribe pursuant to section 146 of the Correction Law (Matter [555]*555of Hughes v. Cashin, 184 Misc. 757; Matter of Mummiani v. La Vallee, 21 Misc 2d 415).

The court finds no impropriety in the regulations here enforced.

The applications are dismissed.

Gambadoro v. La Vallee, 20 Misc. 2d 554, 199 N.Y.S.2d 264, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3825 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1960).

Pincite

20 Misc. 2d 554 (Gambadoro v. La Vallee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related