Supreme Court, Orange County, August 31, 2022

New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Board of Parole, Albany (Heather S. Odom of counsel), for petitioner/complainant.

Richard B. Golden, County Attorney, Goshen (Anthony F. Cardoso of counsel), for respondents/defendants.

Petitioner/complainant New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) moves for:

1. a declaratory judgment finding that the respondents/defendants' failure to transport and produce individuals being held in their custody (hereinafter releasees), as a result of a securing order brought forward after the issuance of a parole revocation warrant, to their scheduled parole revocation hearings is unlawful; and

2. an order compelling the respondents/defendants to promptly transport and produce all releasees within their custody and control to their scheduled parole revocation hearings upon notice by the petitioner/complainant.

The court notes that the requests for relief by the petitioner/complainant with respect to individual releasees were either withdrawn by the petitioner/complainant or are moot.

The petitioner/complainant's application is granted to the extent that it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the Orange County Sheriff shall transport and produce all releasees within their custody and control to their scheduled parole revocation hearings when directed to do so by an Orange County Court Judge or Acting Orange County Court Judge with jurisdiction over the releasee. All other requested relief is denied.

In the instant matter, petitioner/complainant DOCCS seeks, inter alia, to require the Orange County Sheriff to transport releasees to parole revocation hearings at any place designated by DOCCS, at any date and time directed by DOCCS, and for as many times as desired by DOCCS. Executive Law § 259-i was amended, effective March 1, 2022, to prohibit the holding of final revocation hearings at a "correctional facility, detention center or local correctional facility" (Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [i] [B] [2]). As a result, DOCCS now wants the Orange County Sheriff to transport parolees at the Orange County{**76 Misc 3d at 962} Correctional Facility to and from locations selected by DOCCS, including out-of-county locations, merely upon notice by or at the direction of DOCCS.

Respondent/defendant Orange County Sheriff opposes the relief sought by DOCCS. The Orange County Sheriff argues, inter alia, that DOCCS does not have the authority to unilaterally [*2]direct the Orange County Sheriff to transport releasees to and from parole revocation hearings. The court agrees. Granting DOCCS such broad, unfettered authority over the Orange County Sheriff is without legal basis. Further, it would disrupt the normal day-to-day operations of the Sheriff's Office and "compromise security within the County" (aff of Chief Deputy Sheriff Dennis Barry ¶¶ 9-10). As stated by Chief Barry,

"Regardless of the number of parolees on any given day, constantly tying up limited Deputy resources every week to transport parolees to Westchester County for hearings would be an incredible hardship on the functioning of the Sheriff's Office and the protection of the public of Orange County. Even one parolee would take 1/3 of the available workforce on a given day out of commission in another county for a substantial period of time, if not the entire shift" (aff of Chief Deputy Sheriff Dennis Barry ¶ 10).

The court is well aware that the Sheriff is responsible to transport newly sentenced defendants and parole violators to State correctional facilities (see Matter of Broome County v State of New York, 152 AD2d 160 [3d Dept 1989]). However, in the matter sub judice, the persons being transported are neither newly sentenced defendants nor parole violators. Rather, they are releasees who have not yet been found to have violated parole and, in fact, may not have violated parole. Enlarging the authority of DOCCS to permit it to order the Sheriff to transport releasees to any location that DOCCS desires and as many times as DOCCS desires is unwarranted. The authority to issue such directives to the Sheriff lies with the courts, not DOCCS. Accordingly, the petitioner/complainant's application may be granted only to the extent that the Orange County Sheriff shall comply with those directives to transport releasees which are issued by a judge or justice having jurisdiction over the releasee.