| Matter of Lynch v Smith |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08708 [123 AD3d 1279] |
| December 11, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting
Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected through Wednesday, January 28, 2015 |
[*1]
| In the Matter of Rickey Lynch, Appellant, v Brandon J.
Smith, as Superintendent of Greene Correctional Facility, et al.,
Respondents. |
Rickey Lynch, Freeport, appellant pro se.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel),
for respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Elliott III, J.), entered May 7, 2014
in Greene County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to
CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision calculating petitioner's jail time credit.
In October 2011, petitioner was sentenced by the County Court of Suffolk County to
an aggregate prison term of 31/2 to 7 years upon his conviction of, among
other things, criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. In July
2013, he was sentenced by Supreme Court in Nassau County to a prison term of 2 to 4
years, to be served concurrently with the 2011 sentence, upon his conviction of burglary
in the third degree. Petitioner's release dates were calculated based upon his 2011
sentence, which had the longest unexpired time to run at the time that the 2013 sentence
was imposed (see Penal Law § 70.30 [1] [a]). He was credited with
641 days of jail time for the period of January 9, 2010 to July 13, 2010 (186 days) for
time served in Nassau County from the time of his arrest on the charge resulting in his
2013 conviction until he was released on bail, and for the period of July 27, 2010 to
October 24, 2011 (455 days) from the time of his arrest in Suffolk County on the charges
forming the basis of his 2011 conviction until he was received into the custody of the
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. His parole eligibility date was
determined to be July 18, 2013—that is, petitioner was immediately eligible for
parole by operation of Penal Law § 70.30 (1) (a) once credited for the
additional jail time served in Nassau County—and his maximum expiration date
was calculated as January 18, 2017, with an earliest conditional release date of
September 18, 2014 based upon possible merit time.
[*2] Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78
proceeding seeking an additional 526 days of jail time credits, purportedly representing
the total time that he was in custody on the Nassau County charges. Petitioner asserted
that, for the time frame that he was being held on charges that culminated in more than
one sentence, he was entitled to have the credit applied against each sentence—or,
in other words, to be credited twice for the jail time that he was held on both the Nassau
County and Suffolk County indictments. Supreme Court dismissed the petition,
prompting this appeal.
Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to additional jail time credit against his 2013
sentence that was imposed in Nassau County. His maximum expiration date, however, is
not calculated based upon that sentence. Rather, because his 2011 and 2013 sentences
were imposed concurrently, "[t]he maximum term . . . merge[s] in and [is]
satisfied by discharge of the term which has the longest unexpired time to run" (Penal
Law § 70.30 [1] [a]). At the time that his 2 to 4-year sentence was imposed
in 2013, the 31/2 to 7-year sentence on his 2011 conviction in Suffolk
County had the longest unexpired time to run; therefore, crediting jail time against his
2013 sentence would not affect his maximum expiration date. Accordingly, inasmuch as
petitioner received credits against his 2011 sentence for all time served in connection
with the charges that culminated in both his 2011 and 2013 sentences, Supreme Court
properly determined that his maximum expiration date was accurately calculated (see Matter of Brown v Apple,
119 AD3d 1295, 1296 [2014]; see also People ex rel. Moultrie v Yelich, 95 AD3d 1571,
1573 [2012]; Matter of Blake v
Travis, 35 AD3d 925, 925 [2006]).
Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the
judgment is affirmed, without costs.