New York Law Review

Tag: Interstate Compact

  • Matter of Costello v. Waterfront Commission, 72 N.Y.2d 1019 (1988): Applicability of Correction Law to Interstate Compact Agencies

    Matter of Costello v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, 72 N.Y.2d 1019 (1988)

    Article 23-A of the New York Correction Law, concerning employment opportunities for former inmates, does not apply to the Waterfront Commission, an agency established by an interstate compact between New York and New Jersey.

    Summary

    Costello, convicted of multiple felonies, sought restoration to the longshoremen’s register as a checker, arguing the Waterfront Commission improperly denied his application by ignoring Article 23-A of the Correction Law. The Commission cited the seriousness of Costello’s crimes and his lack of good character. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s annulment of the Commission’s determination, finding a rational basis for the denial. The Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing with the Appellate Division’s rationale and adding that Article 23-A does not apply to the Waterfront Commission because the legislature did not properly amend the interstate compact that created the commission.

    Facts

    Costello had four felony convictions stemming from two schemes to defraud Las Vegas casinos.
    He applied for restoration to the longshoremen’s register as a checker with the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor.
    The Waterfront Commission denied his application, citing the severity of his crimes and a lack of good character and integrity required for the checker position.

    Procedural History

    Costello initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the Waterfront Commission’s decision.
    Supreme Court initially granted Costello’s petition, annulling the Commission’s determination.
    The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s decision and dismissed the petition, finding a rational basis for the Commission’s denial.
    Costello appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Waterfront Commission erred in denying Costello’s application for restoration to the longshoremen’s register.
    Whether the provisions of Article 23-A of the Correction Law apply to the New York/New Jersey Waterfront Commission.

    Holding

    No, the Waterfront Commission did not err in denying Costello’s application because a rational basis existed for the decision due to the seriousness of Costello’s prior felony convictions and his lack of good character.
    No, Article 23-A of the Correction Law does not apply to the Waterfront Commission because the New York Legislature did not properly amend the interstate compact that created the Commission to include the requirements of Article 23-A.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals agreed with the Appellate Division that the Waterfront Commission had a rational basis to deny Costello’s application, referencing the Waterfront Commission Act and the precedent set in Matter of Sudano v Waterfront Commn., 87 AD2d 633.
    The court emphasized that the Waterfront Commission was established by an Interstate Compact approved by Congress, making it subject to specific requirements for amendments and supplements as outlined in McKinney’s Unconsolidated Laws of NY § 9870.
    According to the compact, amendments require legislative action by both New York and New Jersey.
    The Court found no indication that the New York Legislature intended Article 23-A to apply to the Waterfront Commission. The court emphasized the absence of any reference to the Waterfront Commission in the text and legislative history of Article 23-A.
    The court reasoned, “In the present case, the absence from the text and legislative history of article 23-A of any reference to the Waterfront Commission, coupled with the absence of an express statement that the Legislature was amending or supplementing the provisions of the ‘Compact’ and that article 23-A would take effect upon the enactment by New Jersey of legislation of identical effect, if it had not already done so, indicates that the New York Legislature never intended article 23-A to apply to the Waterfront Commission.”
    The Court rejected the argument that similar public policies in New York and New Jersey regarding employment opportunities for former inmates were sufficient to amend the compact.
    Therefore, the Waterfront Commission did not err by not applying Article 23-A when denying Costello’s application.

  • People ex rel. Gonzales v. New York State Board of Parole, 48 N.Y.2d 46 (1979): Parolee’s Right to Prompt Hearing Despite Out-of-State Incarceration

    People ex rel. Gonzales v. New York State Board of Parole, 48 N.Y.2d 46 (1979)

    A parolee is entitled to a prompt final parole revocation hearing, even when incarcerated in another state, unless the Board of Parole demonstrates that such a hearing cannot be held subject to its convenience and practical control.

    Summary

    Gonzales, a New York parolee, was incarcerated in New Jersey on new charges. New York issued a parole violation warrant but lodged it as a detainer. After completing his New Jersey sentence, Gonzales was transferred to New York, where revocation hearings were held. He argued these hearings were not prompt. The New York Court of Appeals held that Gonzales was entitled to prompt hearings, even during his out-of-state incarceration, unless the Parole Board could demonstrate that holding the hearings was impractical. The court emphasized the ease of interstate cooperation and the Board’s failure to show any actual impediment to holding timely hearings.

    Facts

    In December 1973, Gonzales was sentenced in New York to an indeterminate prison term. He was paroled to New Jersey in December 1976, subject to a New Jersey parole violation warrant. He was later paroled in New Jersey in April 1977, with New Jersey agreeing to supervise his New York parole. In May 1978, Gonzales was arrested in New Jersey and held on bail. New Jersey informed New York of the arrest. New York did not issue a parole violation warrant at that time. Gonzales was convicted in New Jersey of statutory rape, desertion, and nonsupport. New York issued a parole violation warrant in December 1978, lodging it as a detainer.

    Procedural History

    After Gonzales completed his New Jersey sentence in March 1979, he was transferred to New York. A preliminary parole revocation hearing was held on March 16, 1979, and a final revocation hearing was held on May 28, 1979, resulting in the revocation of his parole. Gonzales then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing denial of his right to prompt revocation hearings. Special Term dismissed the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that Gonzales’ right to hearings accrued only upon his return to New York. Two justices dissented. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a parolee, incarcerated in another state, is entitled to a prompt parole revocation hearing in New York, or whether the right to such a hearing is suspended until the parolee is physically returned to New York.

    Holding

    Yes, because a parolee is entitled to prompt revocation hearings if he is “subject to the convenience and practical control of the Parole Board,” and the burden of showing that the parolee is “beyond its convenience and control” lies with the Parole Board.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court emphasized that a preliminary revocation hearing must be held within 15 days of the warrant’s execution, and the final hearing within 90 days of the preliminary hearing, as per Executive Law § 259-i. The court distinguished its holding from Moody v. Daggett, noting New York’s commitment to prompt hearings even when a parolee is incarcerated on new charges. The court reasoned that modern interstate cooperation makes it easier for New York to conduct hearings even when the parolee is in another state. The Board of Parole bears the burden of proving that holding a hearing in a timely fashion was impractical. The court stated, “In view of the relative ease of interstate communication and transportation and the vitality of legal and practical interstate co-operation today we perceive no sufficient justification for laying down a per se rule that imprisonment in a sister State means necessarily and always that the imprisoned parolee is not subject to the convenience and control of New York State parole authorities.” The court pointed to the Interstate Compact for Out-of-State Parolee Supervision (Executive Law § 259-m) which facilitates such cooperation. The court concluded that because New York failed to demonstrate any actual difficulty in holding a prompt hearing, Gonzales’ rights were violated. The court stated, “On this record it cannot be said that the New York State Board of Parole has met its burden of showing that relator was not or could not easily have been brought within its convenient and practical control during the period from December 15, 1978 to March 1, 1979. To characterize the present situation otherwise would be to denigrate the significance of the interstate compact to which all 50 States are parties and to ignore the failure of the Parole Board to advance other than hypothetical obstacles.”