Johnson v. Recore

284 A.D.2d 692, 726 N.Y.S.2d 303, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6194
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 14, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 692 (Johnson v. Recore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnson v. Recore, 284 A.D.2d 692, 726 N.Y.S.2d 303, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered August 22, 2000 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner’s request to participate in a temporary release program.

Petitioner, serving a sentence for attempted murder in the second degree, applied for permission to participate in an industrial training leave as part of a temporary release program. The application was denied as the offense for which petitioner is incarcerated renders him ineligible to participate in such program (see, 7 NYCRR 1900.4 [c] [1] [ii]; [3]). Supreme Court dismissed the CPLR article 78 proceeding to review that determination and we affirm.

Inasmuch as an inmate’s participation in a temporary release program is a privilege and not a right (see, Correction Law § 855 [9]), “our review is limited to determining whether the denial of the privilege ‘violated any positive statutory requirement or denied a constitutional right of the inmate and whether [it] is affected by irrationality bordering on impropriety’ ” (Matter of Williams v Recore, 251 AD2d 833, 833-834, quoting Matter of Gonzalez v Wilson, 106 AD2d 386, 386-387). Petitioner has not established that the denial of his application [693]*693was affected by a statutory or constitutional violation (see, Matter of Rossney v Pataki, 239 AD2d 632) and, accordingly, we decline to disturb the determination that petitioner was ineligible to participate in the temporary release program. Petitioner’s remaining assertions have been examined and found to be without merit.

Crew III, J. P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

Cody v. Pataki
24 A.D.3d 1058 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 A.D.2d 692, 726 N.Y.S.2d 303, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-recore-nyappdiv-2001.