County of Nassau v. Cuomo, 68 N.Y.2d 740 (1986)

Executive Law § 259-i(3)(a)(i) mandates that the county where an alleged parole violator is arrested is responsible for their detention.

Summary

This case concerns a dispute between the County of Nassau and the State of New York regarding the responsibility for detaining alleged parole violators. The Appellate Division declared that the County must accept for detention all alleged parole violators supervised within Nassau County. The Court of Appeals modified this ruling, clarifying that the County’s responsibility extends to alleged parole violators arrested within the county, as explicitly stated in Executive Law § 259-i (3) (a) (i). The Court declined to address the timing of the State’s obligation to accept prisoners, as the argument was raised for the first time on appeal.

Facts

The central issue revolves around which entity, Nassau County or the State of New York, is responsible for housing individuals arrested for allegedly violating their parole. The case arose from a disagreement on the interpretation of relevant statutes governing the detention of parole violators. The lower courts made decisions about the number of days after sentencing the State must accept prisoners.

Procedural History

The case originated in a lower court, which ruled on the responsibility for detaining parole violators. The Appellate Division affirmed in part but modified the lower court’s decision. The County of Nassau then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. Both parties then urged for the first time before this court that the State’s obligation to accept a prisoner commences when the prisoner becomes State-ready, rather than upon sentencing.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Executive Law § 259-i (3) (a) (i) requires Nassau County to accept for detention all alleged parole violators whose parole is supervised in Nassau County, or only those arrested within the county?

2. Whether the State’s obligation to accept a prisoner commences upon sentencing or when the prisoner becomes State-ready?

Holding

1. No, because Executive Law § 259-i (3) (a) (i) unambiguously states that Nassau County is responsible for lodging alleged parole violators arrested within the county.

2. The Court did not rule on this issue because it was raised for the first time on appeal.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals based its decision primarily on the clear and unambiguous language of Executive Law § 259-i (3) (a) (i). The statute explicitly states the county’s responsibility extends to those arrested within its borders. The court deferred to the plain meaning of the statute, thus overturning the Appellate Division’s broader interpretation. Regarding the timing of the State’s obligation, the Court declined to address the argument as it was not raised in the lower courts. The Court emphasized the principle that issues generally cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The court stated, “We cannot, however, consider such an issue for the first time on appeal.”