Vol. 19, No. 3 : Summer 2009 Published by Prisoners' Legal Services of New York

B Felony Re-sentencing for State Prisoners
Who Is Eligible?
New York State recently passed a
sentence reform bill that allows some people
who are in the custody of the Department of
Correctional Services (DOCS) to apply to be
re-sentenced.
Under the new law, an
individual who is serving an old law
indeterminate sentence (a sentence with a
minimum and a maximum term) with a
maximum term of more than three years on a
B level drug felony, may be eligible to apply to
have his/her indeterminate sentence changed
to a generally shorter determinate sentence (a
sentence with one flat number). An individual
who is eligible to be re-sentenced on a B
felony sentence may also apply to have other
C, D and E drug sentences imposed at the
same time or included in the same commitment
order changed. The new provision becomes
effective on October 7, 2009.

Are All B Felony Drug Offenders
Eligible?
An individual serving time on an old law
B felony is not eligible for re-sentencing if
within the past 10 years s/he was convicted of
either a violent felony offense or an offense for
which merit time is not available. The 10
years is extended by any time s/he was

incarcerated for any reason during the period
between the commission of the previous felony
and the time of the commission of the
present felony. Incarceration time after the
commission of the present felony counts
towards the 10 year period. If enough time
has passed since the commission of the violent
or non-merit eligible felony, the person is
eligible to apply for re-sentencing.
Anyone who was ever convicted as a
second violent felony offender or a persistent
violent felony offender is also not eligible to be
re-sentenced.
. . . . .article continues on Page 4

Also Inside . . .
UCC Emergency Rules . . . . . . . .Page 6
“Think Outside the Cell”
Writing Contest . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7
Tier III for Abusive Language
In Grievance . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9

Subscribe to Pro Se, see Page 18 for
details.

This project is supported in part by grants from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, the
New York State Bar Foundation, and the Tompkins County Bar Association. Points of view in this document
are those of the author and do not represent the official policies of the grantors.

Page 2

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

A MESSAGE FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Karen L. Murtagh-Monks

If You Count Them, Count Their Vote
In the Fall of 2006, the National Research Council issued a report commissioned by the United
States Census Bureau finding that counting prisoners as residents of the prisons where they were
housed distorted the political process and raised legitimate concerns about the fairness of the census
itself. Thus, the issue of where to count prisoners in the census is not new, but it is percolating now
because the 2010 census is just around the corner. Numerous articles have recently been written
about this issue, but an Op-Ed piece published in the New York Times on August 5, 2009, caught
my attention as a step toward providing a rational solution. With the permission of the author, and
the New York Times, I reprint the article below.
While I agree with Professor Thompson that a compromise solution is available, since prisoners
are transferred from prison to prison on a regular basis, it may not be practical to count them as
residents of the county in which they are located at the time the census is done. In addition, any
solution to this problem should be based on the premise that, in any system in which you count
individuals for the purpose of determining political districts, the individuals who are counted, if age
eligible, must be given the right to vote; to do otherwise is a blatant violation of our Constitution.
New York’s present system of counting prisoners as residents of their counties of incarceration but
not allowing them to vote, has the effect of increasing the weight of the vote for voters in Upstate
New York thereby distorting the principle of “one man – one vote.”
Thus, as an alternative to Prof. Thompson’s compromise, I would propose that the Census
Bureau adopt a procedure whereby prisoners who will be returning to their home residence before
the next census period be counted as residents of their home communities and be given the
opportunity to vote. Those serving more than 10 years, if not allowed to vote, should not be counted
for the purposes of drawing political district lines. This solution resolves the dilution issue and
promotes re-entry efforts by giving prisoners who will be returning to their communities a vested
interest in helping to shape the future of those communities.

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

Democracy Behind Bars
By Anthony Thompson
Published in the New York Times August 5,
2009
WHEN do communities want prisoners in
their backyards? When the census rolls around.
Counting inmates as residents — which is
permitted under the Census Bureau’s “usual
residence” rule — skews political power, clout
and resources. Unless the Obama
administration acts soon to change the
residence rule, these imbalances will be built
into the 2010 census.
The problem is simple: the usual residence
rule creates political districts that would not
otherwise exist. For example, the district of
State Senator Elizabeth O’C. Little, a
Republican in upstate New York, has 13
prisons, adding approximately 13,500
incarcerated “residents.” Without the inmate
population, Ms. Little would face an uncertain
future. Her district would probably have to be
redrawn because it wouldn’t have enough
residents to justify a Senate seat.
The residence rule raises two fundamental
issues:
First, inmates in nearly all states aren’t
allowed to vote, yet their presence affects
electoral representation in places where they
do not live permanently.
Second, a disproportionate number of
state prison inmates are from urban areas.
Most state prisons, however, are in rural areas.
As a result, resources and electoral authority
are transferred from inner cities to rural
jurisdictions.
The effects are plain to see. Cities lose out
on funds that could be used both for crime
prevention and prisoner rehabilitation; rural
areas do their best to thwart reform because
they don’t want to lose the benefits that
prisons confer on them.

Page 3

What can be done?
The politics are complicated. Municipal
leaders — including the mayor of New York
City — support counting inmates in their last
known address before incarceration. Rural
officials support keeping the residence rule as
it is. Criminal justice experts think it’s best to
count inmates as residents of the communities
where they are likely to return after their
incarceration. (This, after all, is where the reentry programs need to be.)
The Obama administration would do well
to find a middle path. Commerce Secretary
Gary Locke and Robert Groves, director of
the Census Bureau, should propose an
administrative change to the residence rule:
Inmates returning to their home communities
before the next census period — those serving
a sentence of 10 years or less — should be
counted in their home communities. Those
serving more than 10 years should be counted
where they are in custody. (The residence rules
for other large transient groups, like college
students, wouldn’t be affected by this change.)
This proposal is not perfect, but it would
begin to rectify the political imbalance inherent
in the residence rule — an imbalance that
distorts both the census and basic democratic
principles.
Anthony Thompson, a professor at the
New York University School of Law, is the
author of “Releasing Prisoners, Redeeming
Communities.”

Page 4

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

. . . . continued from Page 1

Will DOCS Identify and Notify
Eligible Individuals?
In an effort to identify those people who
might be eligible for re-sentencing, DOCS
issued a list of everyone whose most recent
commitment is for an old law B felony.
Defender organizations around the state have
been using this list to figure out who is eligible
and who is not. Some prisoners who are
thought to be eligible have been receiving
offers of representation from the defender
groups.
The DOCS list does not include everyone
who is potentially eligible for re-sentencing.
When it compiled the list, DOCS was not able
to identify people who owe time on an old law
B felony and who are now also incarcerated on
new crimes. Because the list is based only on
people’s most recent commitments, people
who owed parole time on old B felonies and
who are serving both the old law B and a
sentence on a new crime are not on the list.
We think these people are eligible to apply to
be re-sentenced but we do not know who they
are. There may be additional omissions in the
list.

How Do I Start the Re-sentencing
Process?
If you think that you are eligible to apply
and you have not heard from a defender
organization please contact the defender group
from the county of your conviction. The
address of each county’s public defense service
is listed on pages 19 through 27 of this issue of
Pro Se. To help speed evaluation of your case
you should send a copy of your Criminal
History Report (rap sheet) along with your
request for representation. If you do not have
a copy of your rap sheet, you can order one

from: NYS Division of Criminal Justice
Services, Record Review Unit, 4 Tower Place,
Albany, NY 12203.
This article was written by William
Gibney, Esq., of the Special Litigation Unit of
the Criminal Defense Division of The Legal
Aid Society.

News and Briefs
Ex-Offender Gets Second
Chance To Be a Substitute
Teacher in NYC
An ex-offender who challenged the NYC
Department of Education’s (DOE) denial of
his application for a substitute teacher position
was given a second chance to become a
substitute teacher. In Matter of El v. NYC
Dept. Of Education, Index No. 40151/08
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. April 1, 2009), the court
found that the Department of Education’s
denial of the petitioner’s application was
arbitrary and capricious because it gave undue
weight to petitioner’s 20 year old conviction
and failed to give appropriate consideration to
the evidence that he presented in his favor.
Due to this error, the court ordered the DOE
to re-consider petitioner’s application.
When he was between 18 and 22 years old,
Mr. El, who is now 42, pled guilty to
Burglary, a class C felony, and five
misdemeanors involving trespass, petit larceny
and criminal mischief. In the intervening 20
years, Mr. El obtained a GED, a Bachelor’s of
Science degree in Human Resources from
Trouro College, and a Master’s of Science
degree in Counseling and Education from
Long Island University. He has a license to
practice as a mental health counselor, is state

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

accredited as an alcoholism and substance
abuse counselor trainee and is certified as a
teaching assistant and provisionally certified as
a school counselor. He has been employed
as a counselor at Creedmoor Psychiatric
Center, as a youth supervisor for Oneida
County Workforce, and as a counselor for
developmentally disabled adults in Albany.
Mr. El also worked as a substitute teacher at
two schools in Albany.
In 2007, the Board of Parole issued Mr. El
a certificate of relief from disabilities. This
certificate creates a presumption of
rehabilitation with respect to the offenses
specified in the certificate. Mr. El’s certificate
refers to his conviction for the crime of
burglary in the second degree and “removes all
legal bars and disabilities to employment,
license and privilege,” except those pertaining
to firearms and the right to be eligible for
public office.
Correction Law §752 bars discrimination
against persons previously convicted of
criminal offenses and prohibits the denial of
employment based on an applicant’s criminal
record unless 1) there is a direct relationship
between a previous criminal offense and the
specific license or job sought or 2) the
issuance of a license or the granting of
employment would involve an unreasonable
risk to the safety or welfare of specific
individuals or the general public.
The DOE denied Mr. El’s application
stating that in light of his criminal record,
granting employment would pose an
unreasonable risk to the safety and welfare of
the school community.
Section 753(1) of the Correction Law sets
forth 8 factors which a potential employer
must consider when making a determination
pursuant to §752 as to whether the
unreasonable risk exception applies. One of
these factors is the information produced by
the applicant in regard to his rehabilitation.
The BOE focused its rejection of Mr. El’s

Page 5

application on his criminal history, failed to
take into account the certificate of relief from
disabilities, and in the litigation, supported its
position by citing cases which the court found
to be factually distinct from the facts presented
by Mr. El’s case.
The court found that Mr. El’s
certificate of relief from disabilities,
in conjunction with a presumption of
that is created by a certificate of relief from
disabilities and the State’s long standing policy
of eliminating bias against ex offenders,
showed that the BOE’s rejection of Mr. El’s
application was arbitrary and capricious.
The court remanded (sent back) the case
to the BOE for “detailed consideration” of the
factors set forth in Correction Law §753(1),
including a determination of whether “the
certificate of relief from disabilities would
benefit this applicant in light of the public
policy encouraging the employment of exoffenders so that petitioner’s positive factors
outweigh the negative ones and warrant the
granting of his application.”

Governor Nominates Andrea
Evans As Chair of the State
Board of Parole
Andrea Evans is the new Chairperson of
the Board of Parole and the Chief Executive
Officer of the Division of Parole. Ms. Evans
was formerly the Director of the Division of
Parole for Region II, which includes Brooklyn,
Queens and Staten Island. She began her
career with the Division of Parole in 1986 as a
parole officer. Ms. Evans was also a parole
revocation officer, a senior parole officer, and
an investigator in the Division of Parole’s
Office of Professional Responsibility.

Page 6

UCC Liens and Tier III
Hearings
In 2006, based on false liens that he had
filed against prosecutors involved in a prior
prosecution, Jovan Fludd was convicted of
offering a false instrument for filing in the first
degree, falsifying business records in the first
degree, and obstructing governmental
administration in the second degree. After Mr.
Fludd was transferred to DOCS custody, a cell
search conducted in 2006 led to the recovery
of UCC-1 statements listing DOCS staff who
had been involved in a Tier III proceeding
charging Mr. Fludd with kiting mail. An
administrative segregation proceeding held in
connection with the recovery of these
materials was administratively reversed. In
2008, following a court decision finding that a
order from the sentencing judge permitting
DOCS to confine Mr. Fludd in administrative
segregation (ad seg) was improper, DOCS
staff recommended that Mr. Fludd be placed in
ad seg on the basis of the UCC-1 forms found
in his cell in 2006, his conviction for false
UCC-1 filings, and kiting violations in 2006
and 2007. Security staff stated that these
items demonstrated that Mr. Fludd’s presence
in general population posed a threat to the
safety and security of the prison. The hearing
officer accepted the recommendation, and Mr.
Fludd appealed.
In Matter of Fludd v. NYS DOCS, 879
N.Y.S.2d 606 (3d Dep’t 2009), the court
found that because at the most recent ad seg
hearing there was evidence that had not been
presented at the prior ad seg hearing (that had
been administratively reversed), the hearing
officer’s determination was not based solely on
the evidence that was before the hearing
officer at a prior ad seg hearing; evidence that
was not before the hearing officer at the first
ad seg hearing consisted of the prior
conviction for fraudulent UCC filings and a

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

second incident of kiting that occurred while
petitioner was in SHU. This evidence, in
combination with the other evidence, was
sufficient to permit the rational inference that
petitioner intended to file the false UCC forms
and to continue his efforts to circumvent the
correspondence rules. Thus, the court found,
there was substantial evidence to support the
finding that Mr. Fludd’s presence in general
population was a threat to safety and security.
The court also found that the hearing officer
had not violated Mr. Fludd’s rights to
procedural due process.

Related Emergency Rules
Adopted by DOCS
In response to what DOCS calls inmate
schemes to fraudulently utilize the provisions
of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) to
file baseless liens with the Secretary of State
against DOCS employees and others, DOCS
has enacted several emergency rules. These
rules went into effect on July 14, 2009 and are
effective until October 11, 2009. Public
comments on the emergency rules will be
received until August 28, 2009. Between
August 28 and October 11, DOCS will decide
whether, based on the comments or other
factors, it wants to revise the rules before they
become permanent. These emergency rules
replaced emergency rules intended to deal with
the same issue that were filed and effective on
April 16, 2009.

Standards of Inmate Behavior:
7 N.Y.C.R.R. §270.2
Rule 107.21 provides that an inmate shall
not file or record any document or instrument
which purports to create a lien or record a
security interest of any kind against any person
or property of any officer or employee of

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

Page 7

DOCS, the State of New York, or the United
States without prior written authorization from
the superintendent or a court order authorizing
such filing. Violation of Rule 107.21 is a Tier
II or III rule violation.

be withheld for investigation. An inmate may
request authorization from the superintendent
to receive specific materials by providing the
superintendent with specific, legitimate legal
reasons why such materials are required.

Rule 113.30 prohibits an inmate, in the
absence of the superintendent’s prior
written approval, from possessing any
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article
9 form, including but not limited to any
financing statement (UCC1, UCC1Ad,
UCC1AP, UCC3, UCC3Ad, UCC3AP,
UCC1CAd), correction statement (UCC5) or
information request (UCC11), whether
printed, copied, typed or hand written, or any
document concerning a scheme involving an
inmate's "strawman," "House Joint Resolution
192 of 1933," the "Redemptive Process,"
"Acceptance for Value" presentments or
document indicating copyright or
attempted copyright of an inmate's name
absent prior written authorization from the
superintendent. Violation of Rule 113.30 is a
Tier II or III level violation.
Recently amended, on an emergency basis
7 N.Y.C.R.R. §721.3(a)(2) provides that
outgoing mail addressed to the secretary of
state, department of state, corporation division
or uniform commercial code unit of any state
must be submitted by the inmate unsealed and
will be subject to inspection.
Recently amended, on an emergency
basis, 7 N.Y.C.R.R. §721.4(a)(2) (Incoming
Mail), provides that all incoming mail will be
inspected for contraband and subpart (d)(7)
provides that the documents listed in Rule
113.30 (set forth above), absent prior written
approval from the superintendent, are
prohibited. Such material and any other
material contained within the correspondence
shall be examined by the superintendent in
consultation with Counsel’s Office, and may

“Think Outside the Cell”
Writing Contest
Resilience Multimedia is sponsoring a
writing contest for people who are or were in
prison, and their loved ones. The best
submissions will be included in a series of
books called “Think Outside the Cell.” This
series is intended to help incarcerated and
formerly incarcerated individuals tackle hard
challenges and have successful lives.
Contestants may write personal stories
about one or more of these topics:
·
·
·

Re-entering society after incarceration
Waiting for loved ones to return home
from prison
Prison marriages and relationships

Three winners will be chosen for each
topic. The prize for first place is $300.00;
for second place, $150.00 and for third
place, $75.00. Stories that do not win cash
prizes will still be eligible for inclusion in
the series.

Contest Rules
·

·
·
·
·

Stories must be original and about
events or situations that actually
happened.
Writers may submit stories on more
than one topic.
Stories may be up to 3,000 words.
Stories should be typewritten and
double-spaced.
Handwritten stories will be accepted as
long as they are legible.

Page 8

·

·

·

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

Each page must include a page number
and the author’s name, contact
information and story title.
Resilience Multimedia reserves the
right to edit stories for clarity,
punctuation, spelling and grammar,
and retains the rights to stories in
order to ensure the widest possible
publicity and distribution, both in
the United States and abroad.
Story entries will not be returned.

ALL ENTRIES MUST BE
POSTMARKED BY OCT. 1, 2009.
WINNERS WILL BE ANNOUNCED
ON DECEMBER 1, 2009.
To enter, mail your story, indicating
which topic it addresses to: Resilience
Multimedia, 511 Avenue of the Americas,
Suite 525, New York, NY 10011.

Prisons to Close
In response to budgetary issues, DOCS
plans to close several prisons. DOCS is
considering closing the following prisons:
Camp Gabriels, Camp Pharsalia, and Camp
Mount McGregor. In addition, DOCS plans
to vacate the annexes at Eastern C.F., Green
Haven C.F., Groveland C.F., Lakeview C.F.,
Sullivan and Washington Correctional
Facilities, as well as the minimum portion of
Butler C.F. The medium security portion of
Mount McGregor C.F. will remain open.

State Cases

Disciplinary
Res Judicata Bars Second
Tier III Hearing
On April 17, 2007, Bashir Gustus was
involved in a physical altercation with another
inmate. He was charged with fighting and
disobeying a direct order. A few days after the
incident, following an investigation into the
altercation, and relying on confidential
information, Petitioner Gustus was issued a
second misbehavior report, charging him with
assault and violent conduct. At a hearing on
the first misbehavior report, Mr. Gustus was
found guilty of fighting and refusing a direct
order. At a hearing on the second misbehavior
report, Mr. Gustus was found guilty of assault
and violent conduct. On administrative appeal,
the fighting charge was reversed but the guilty
determinations for assault, violent conduct and
refusing a direct order were affirmed.
Mr. Gustus filed an Article 78 challenge to
the second hearing, arguing that charging him
twice for the same conduct violated the
principle of administrative res judicata. This
principle bars a cause of action that was raised
and adjudicated, or could have been raised and
adjudicated, in a prior action or proceeding.
In Matter of Gustus v. Fischer, 2009 WL
2045448 (3d Dep’t July 16, 2009), the court
found that having proceeded against Mr.
Gustus for fighting, DOCS could not file
additional charges of assault and violent
conduct, and conduct a second proceeding
relating to conduct in the same incident. The
Court stated, “Once a claim is brought to final
conclusion, all other claims arising out of the

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

same transaction or series of transactions
(the same incident) are barred, even if based
upon different theories or seeking a different
remedy.” The court concluded that because
both misbehavior reports charged Petitioner
Gustus with rule violations related to the same
altercation, and while the second report was
based on information from an investigation, all
the information underlying the charges was
available before the first hearing began (the
second hearing began one hour after the first
hearing concluded), the second hearing was
barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Petitioner Gustus was represented by Joel
Landau of the Albany Office of Prisoners’
Legal Services.

Abusive Language in
Grievance Found to be a Basis
for Discipline
Petitioner Tafari was charged with
harassment in connection with what the court
said was his use of vulgar and abusive
language during the DOCS grievance process.
He challenged the determination of guilt,
arguing that 7 N.YC.R.R. §701.6(b) prohibits
reprisals (retaliation) of any kind against an
inmate or employee for good faith utilization
of the grievance process, and specifically states
that “[a] grievant shall not receive a
misbehavior report based solely upon an
allegedly false statement made by the inmate to
the grievance committee.” The lower court
ruled in petitioner’s favor and ordered the
report expunged.
On appeal, DOCS argued that the
lower court had erroneously found that
7 N.Y.C.R.R. §701.6(b) applied to the
petitioner’s conduct. The appellate court
agreed with DOCS, and in Matter of Tafari v.
Fischer, 881 N.Y.S.2d 509 (3d Dep’t 2009)
held that petitioner had not been disciplined

Page 9

for his grievance stating that a correction
officer had said that she wanted to poison
petitioner’s food and wanted him dead.
Rather, he had been disciplined for his obscene
and abusive descriptions of the officer which,
the court said, were totally irrelevant to the
actual grievance, and if proffered (used)
outside of the grievance process, would have
been a proper basis for punishment. The court
went on to hold that prohibiting the use of
such language in petitioner’s grievance does
not undermine the protection afforded the
good-faith use of the grievance process. The
court reversed the lower court’s judgment and
dismissed the petition.

Petitioner Did Not Provide
Information Needed to Identify
His Witness
In Matter of Perez v. Fischer, 879
N.Y.S.2d 232 (3d Dep’t 2009), the petitioner
challenged the determination that he had
threatened another inmate, claiming that by
denying his request to call as a witness the
officer who was responsible for locking
prisoners in their cells on the day of the
incident, the hearing officer had violated his
right to due process of law. The court held
that because there were 50 officers who could
have been the officer in question, and the
petitioner was unable to provide additional
identifying information, the petitioner had not
provided sufficient information and it could
not say that the hearing officer had failed to
use reasonable efforts to secure the witness.

Page 10

Remedy for Reversal
of Hearing Is Limited
In
Matter of Grant v. Fischer, 880
N.Y.S.2d 850 (3d Dep’t 2009), the court
reiterated (again said) that even if an inmate’s
security status changes as the result of a
determination of guilt following a Tier III
hearing, reversal of that hearing will not result
in an order requiring DOCS to restore the
inmate to his prior security status. In Grant,
the petitioner had been found guilty of Tier II
and Tier III offenses. The Tier III offense was
reversed, but references to it were not
removed from the petitioner’s records and this
caused his security status to be raised to
maximum from medium. The petitioner’s
Article 78 challenged the failure to expunge
the references to the Tier III from his record
and noted that this failure had led to the
increase in his security status. The court
ordered the references expunged but declined
to order that the petitioner be restored to the
lower security status. The appellate court,
finding that inmates have no constitutional or
statutory rights to prior housing or
programming status, affirmed the trial court’s
judgment.

Misbehavior Report Was
Written As Soon As
Practicable
Forty days after the alleged incident,
Petitioner DeCastro was charged with
violating the rules of temporary release and
facility correspondence. At the hearing, he
pled guilty to the charges, but argued that the
hearing officer was required to dismiss them
because of the delay between the date of the
incident and the date that the report was
written. In Matter of DeCastro v. Prack, 881
N.Y.S.2d 513 (3d Dep’t 2009), the court held

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

that the petitioner’s regulatory rights had
not been violated because 7 N.Y.C.R.R.
§251-3.1(a), the regulation governing the
writing of misbehavior reports, requires only
that the report be written “as soon as
practicable [possible].” Here, the court held,
the report resulted from an investigation – as
opposed to something observed by corrections
staff – and the report was written within a
week of when an investigator interviewed the
petitioner, and following the conclusion of the
investigation. Under these circumstances, the
court found, the report was tendered (issued)
in a timely manner.

Testimony From Medical Staff
Supports Conclusion That
Inmate Waived Right to
Attend Hearing
In Matter of McFadden v. Dubray, 878
N.Y.S.2d 468 (3d Dep’t 2009), the petitioner
alleged that the hearing officer, by insisting
that Petitioner McFadden attend two hearings
in a wheelchair, had violated his right to attend
the hearings. Petitioner claimed that he was
bedridden due to a disabling ankle injury and
could not go to the hearing, even in a
wheelchair. A facility nurse testified that
petitioner was able to stand and should be able
to use the wheelchair. When the petitioner
said that he was dizzy, the hearing officer
questioned the nurse and a mental health
clinician to determine the petitioner’s current
ability to participate in the proceedings. The
hearing officer warned the petitioner that if he
did not attend the hearing, it would be held in
his absence. Under these circumstances, the
court concluded that there was no basis for
disturbing the hearing officer’s conclusion that
the petitioner had waived his right to attend
the hearings.

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

Waiver of Right to Attend
Hearing Also Waives Right to
Challenge Any Procedural
Irregularities
In Matter of McFadden v. Dubray, 878
N.Y.S.2d 468 (3d Dep’t 2009), the court
found that the petitioner had waived his right
to attend two hearings. See preceding article
for a description of the factual basis for this
finding. The court also concluded that having
declined to attend the hearings, the petitioner
had waived his right to challenge any violation
of his rights to procedural due process of law
that may have occurred. In support of this
conclusion, the court cited Matter of Cooper
v. Selsky, 842 N.Y.S.2d 111 (3d Dep’t 2007)
and Matter of Abdur-Raheem v. Burge, 835
N.Y.S.2d 457 (3d Dep’t 2007).

Scissors in Backpack
Supported Charge of Weapons
Possession
Accused of taking scissors from the prison
chapel, petitioner Wilcox defended herself by
arguing that another inmate had put them in
her backpack. The hearing officer found her
guilty of weapons possession.
Having
admitted that the scissors were in her
backpack and that on the morning that the
scissors were found, she had access to the area
where the scissors were normally located, the
court, in Matter of Wilcox v. Fischer, 881
N.Y.S.2d 555 (3d Dep’t 2009), found that the
hearing officer’s determination of guilt was
supported by substantial evidence.
The petitioner also argued that the hearing
officer’s refusal to dust the scissors for finger
prints violated her right to due process of law.
The court rejected this claim, noting that the
absence of fingerprints on the scissors would

Page 11

be insufficient to defeat the inference of
possession established by the fact that they
were found in her backpack. Also, because
the petitioner stated that the inmate whom she
thought had put the scissors in her backpack
would have used the scissors in the past, her
fingerprints on the scissors would not have
shown that she placed them in the backpack.

Court Confirms Hearing
Officer’s Adjudication of
Conspiracy to Escape
A parole officer, searching a parolee’s
residence (dwelling), found a letter from
petitioner Anderson in which the petitioner
asked the parolee to help him to escape. After
being found guilty at a Tier III hearing,
petitioner Anderson brought an Article 78
proceeding alleging that the hearing officer, by
refusing his request to call the parole officer as
a witness and by failing to produce the parolee
as a witness, violated his right to call
witnesses. In Matter of Anderson v Fischer,
880 N.Y.S.2d 867 (3d Dep’t 2009), the court
rejected the petitioner’s arguments, and held
that having been shown a copy of the letter,
the parole officer’s testimony was irrelevant,
and having made numerous attempts to get in
touch with the parolee, all of them
unsuccessful, the hearing officer had fulfilled
his obligation to produce the witness. Finally,
the court noted that petitioner’s right to
documentary evidence was not violated by the
hearing officer’s decision to withhold the letter
from petitioner until the hearing because the
petitioner was able to review the letter at the
hearing.

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

Page 12

Grievance Decisions
Court Finds Kanji Cards
to be Contraband
The package room at Sing Sing C.F.
refused to allow petitioner Binkley to receive
the Kanji Cards that he had ordered.
Petitioner filed a grievance, protesting this
decision. He stated that the cards were
Japanese language flashcards for the purpose
of memorizing Japanese writing and
vocabulary. The Central Office Review
Committee upheld the package room decision
and the petitioner brought an Article 78
proceeding, challenging the propriety
(correctness) of the decision.
The court, in Matter of Binkley v. NYS
DOCS, 881 N.Y.S.2d 922 (3d Dep’t 2009),
ruled against the petitioner. The court noted
that correction officials are granted wide
latitude (a lot of freedom) to ensure safety
and security and that decisions such as this will
only be overturned if they are arbitrary and
capricious (not rational). The court went on
to note that the Directive No. 4911, the
directive cited by CORC in support of its
decision, prohibits inmates from possessing
any item not specifically authorized by the
regulations.
As Kanji Cards are not
specifically authorized, they are contraband
and inmates can be prohibited from possessing
them. Thus, the court found, the grievance
decision was a rational interpretation of the
directive.

Court Rejects Petition For
Experimental Treatment
Petitioner, who suffers from hepatitis C,
filed a grievance asking that he be provided
with the treatment recommended by his
treating physicians. When CORC denied his
grievance, the petitioner filed an Article 78

action seeking a court order that the denial of
treatment was arbitrary and capricious and
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs. In opposing the order, DOCS informed
the court that it had refused to approve the
treatment because the treatment had not been
approved by the Food and Drug
Administration and was therefore considered
to be experimental and because there were no
long term studies showing that the treatment
was effective. The court, in Matter of Wooley
v. NYS DOCS, 876 N.Y.S.2d 568 (3d Dep’t
2009), ruled that under these circumstances,
the Department’s position was not arbitrary
and capricious. The court also found that the
Department’s conduct did not demonstrate
deliberate indifference to a serious medical
need. Based on these findings, the court
dismissed the petition.

Sentencing
Although The Court Imposed
Multiple Sentences, They
Merged Into One Sentence
In People v. Delk, 875 N.Y.S.2d 101 (2d
Dep’t 2009), the defendant moved to be resentenced on his A-II drug felony. In 2002, he
had been convicted of criminal possession of a
controlled substance in the second degree, a
Class A-II felony offense, and criminal
possession of a weapon in the second degree,
a Class C violent felony offense. He was
sentenced to a determinate term of 5 years on
the weapon possession count and to an
indeterminate term of 8 1/3 to life on the drug
possession count, to be served concurrently.
In 2007, the defendant moved to be resentenced pursuant to the Rockefeller Drug
Law Reform Act of 2005 (2005 DLRA). The
lower court denied the application because the
defendant was serving a sentence imposed for

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

a violent felony offense, and was therefore
ineligible for re-sentencing.
On appeal, the court noted that to be
eligible for re-sentencing under the 2005
DLRA, a defendant must be eligible to earn
merit time credit. Correction Law 803(1)(d)
provides that an inmate who is serving a
sentence for a violent felony offense is not
eligible for merit time. Here, the defendant
argued that since he had been incarcerated for
more than 5 years, he had finished serving the
determinate sentence imposed for the weapon
possession conviction, and thus was no longer
serving a sentence for a violent felony offense.
The Second Department rejected the
defendant’s argument. The court stated that
concurrent sentences are not served separately.
Rather, where the defendant is subject to
multiple sentences running concurrently, Penal
Law § 70.30(1)(a) provides that the maximum
term or terms of the indeterminate sentences
and the term or terms of the determinate
sentences shall merge in and be satisfied by
discharge of the term which has the longest
unexpired time to run. Thus, the court noted,
when served concurrently, “two or more
sentences are made into one” and represent a
single punishment measured by the sentence
for the highest grade offense into which all
concurrent sentences merge. Accordingly, the
court found, the defendant is still serving the
sentence imposed upon his conviction for
criminal possession of a weapon in the second
degree, rendering him ineligible for merit time
relief and therefore not eligible for resentencing under the 2005 DLRA.

Successful Article 78
Challenge to Administrative
Imposition of PRS
The Appellate Division, Second
Department, recently held that an inmate
whose determinate sentence did not include a
period of post release supervision (PRS) could
use an Article 78 to challenge DOCS’s
addition of PRS to his sentence. In Matter of

Page 13

Pace v. Fischer, 876 N.Y.S.2d 456 (2d Dep’t
2009), the petitioner filed a grievance
challenging DOCS’s authority to add 5 years
of PRS to his 15 year sentence. After his
grievance was denied by the Central Office
Review Committee, and when he was still 8
years from his conditional release date, he filed
an Article 78 challenge to the alteration of his
sentence. The court rejected the basis of
lower court’s decision to dismiss the petition
-- that because the petitioner was not eligible
for conditional release, his action was
premature (brought too early) – and held that
having pursued and exhausted his
administrative remedies, and having obtained
a final agency determination, the petitioner
was entitled to promptly challenge that
determination in an Article 78 proceeding.
Addressing the merits of the petition, the
court found that DOCS did not have the
authority to alter a sentence imposed by a
court and that by doing so, DOCS had
usurped (wrongfully taken) the function of the
sentencing judge. The court granted the
petition and ordered DOCS to delete from
petitioner’s sentence the five year period of
PRS which it had administratively added.

Parole
Loss of Sentencing Minutes
Leads to Positive Inference
In Matter of Duffy v. NYS Division of
Parole, Index No. 2934/09 (Sup. Ct Kings Co.
June 4, 2009), the petitioner asked the court to
vacate a decision denying release to parole
supervision and order the Division of Parole
(DOP) to conduct a new hearing because the
parole board had not considered his sentencing
minutes when it considered his application for
release.

Page 14

In 1981, petitioner was convicted of
murder in the second degree and sentenced to
20 years to life. He committed the crime at the
age of 19 while he was high on drugs.
Petitioner was denied parole and given 24
months holds, at his parole hearings in 2001,
2003, 2005, and 2007. Prior to his hearing in
2007, petitioner asked that a copy of his
sentencing minutes be produced at the hearing.
He was told that they were “unavailable.”
At his parole hearing in 2007, evidence
was introduced that while he was in prison,
petitioner earned his GED, an associate’s
degree in substance abuse counseling, and
credits towards a bachelor’s degree. He had
not received a ticket in over 10 years. He took
full responsibility for the crime. If paroled,
petitioner had lined up a job at an electrical
business.
As at the preceding three hearings, the
Board denied parole, stating that there was a
reasonable probability that he would not live
and remain at liberty without violating the law
and that release was incompatible with the
welfare of society and the safety of the
community.
Petitioner challenged the parole denial,
arguing that the Board was required to
consider the sentencing minutes. In his answer,
the respondent stated that the sentencing
minutes could not be produced.
The court noted that its job is to review
the record and determine whether the decision
is supported by substantial evidence and is not
arbitrary and capricious. If the decision is
supported by substantial evidence and has a
rational basis, it must be sustained. Where an
agency fails to comply with its own rules and
regulations, the agency has acted arbitrarily
and capriciously. Judicial intervention is
warranted only when there is a showing of
irrationality bordering on impropriety.

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

The court noted that the Board is required
by statute to consider recommendations made
by the court at sentencing and that the
Criminal Procedure Law requires that a copy
of the sentencing minutes be provided to
DOCS when an individual is placed in DOCS
custody. Petitioner was able to point to two
instances in which the failure to consider
sentencing minutes led to the reversal by the
Appeals Unit of parole denials. This, the court
stated, rendered the Appeals Unit’s affirmation
of the denial of parole in petitioner’s case
arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of
discretion which demonstrates irrationality
bordering on impropriety.
The court went on to state that petitioner
had been before the Board four times, and not
once had the Board attempted to get his
sentencing minutes. The court found this
indifference to the statutory requirement that
the Board consider the sentencing minutes
“unconscionable.” Under the circumstances,
the court held that the Board must conduct a
new hearing, and at that hearing, must afford
petitioner a favorable inference on the issue of
the sentencing recommendation, that is, the
Board must infer that the sentencing judge
made a recommendation that petitioner be
released on his original parole eligibility date.

Practice Note : In a case with a related
issue, the court found that where the
sentencing minutes presented to the court
showed that the sentencing judge had made
no recommendation, the Board’s failure to
review the sentencing minutes at the
petitioner’s parole hearing was harmless
error. See, Matter of Abbas v. NYS Division
of Parole, 877 N.Y.S.2d 512 (3d Dep’t 2009).

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

Parolee’s Failure to Comply
With Special Condition Leads
To Revocation
Petitioner, a parolee convicted of
manslaughter in the first degree in connection
with his father’s death, was conditionally
released to parole supervision. In light of his
extensive mental health history, he agreed to a
special condition that he attend a counseling
program until his parole officer told him that
he could stop attending. Petitioner was found
guilty of violating the special condition, and a
24 month hold was imposed.
In a legal challenge to the revocation, the
court, in Matter of Ariola v. NYS Division of
Parole, 880 N.Y.S.2d 367 (3d Dep’t 2009),
held that there was substantial evidence that
petitioner had failed to comply with the special
condition, and that the special condition was
imposed in accordance with the law. In
addition, the court held, a special condition
may be imposed prior to or subsequent to
release, and the circumstances of the parolee’s
crime may be taken into account when setting
the conditions.

Failure to Consider Statutory
Factor Leads to De Novo
Hearing
In Matter of Turner v. NYS Board of
Parole, Index No. 405431/07 (New York Co.
June 24, 2009), the court reversed a denial of
parole and ordered a re-hearing where the
court found that the Board of Parole had failed
to consider whether the petitioner could live
and remain at liberty without violating the law.
Petitioner was convicted of, at the age of 17,
first degree manslaughter and second degree
attempted murder. She received an
aggregate term of 10½ to 31½ years. Her

Page 15

crime consisted of killing one of the men who
had for years sexually abused her and
wounding another. When the Parole Board
denied her application, she had been in prison
for 18½ years, more than half of her life.
While in prison, she had gotten her GED,
accumulated college credits, and participated
in a number of in-prison programs. She had
recommendations from a college professor, the
coordinator of one of the programs in which
she worked, and a television reporter.
The court noted that under Executive
Law §259-i(1)(a), the Board of Parole must
determine whether there is a reasonable
possibility that the inmate, if released, will live
and remain at liberty without violating the law,
and in making this determination, must
consider a number of factors, including the
inmate’s institutional record including program
goals and accomplishments, academic
achievements, vocational education, training or
work assignments, therapy, and interpersonal
relationships with staff and inmates.
In denying petitioner’s application, the
Parole Board found that her release was
incompatible with the public welfare as it
would so deprecate the seriousness of her
offenses as to undermine respect for law. The
court found that the Board did not consider
whether there was a reasonable possibility that
the petitioner, if released, would live and
remain at liberty without violating the law.
The court noted that the Court of Appeals has
held that consideration of this factor was
critical. Here, the court commented, it was
quite possible that the Board had failed to
speak to this required factor because at this
point in time, the Board was unable to state
that the petitioner is a danger to the
community and that there is not a reasonable
probability that she can live free outside of jail
without again violating the law. The Board’s
failure, the court found, was fatal to the
Board’s decision and required reconsideration
of the petitioner’s application at a hearing de
novo.

Page 16

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

Court of Claims
Inmate Claimant Fails to Meet
Burden of Proof at Trial
While in DOCS custody, Alejandro Rosa
worked as a carpenter and was injured while
using a table saw when the blade stopped,
restarted and propelled a piece of wood into
one of his fingers. He filed a claim against the
State, alleging that this had happened because
the saw did not have a ventilation system, and
therefore sawdust and debris built up around
the blade.
When the case went to trial, claimant
Alejandro did not produce evidence showing
either that after the accident, the saw had been
inspected and it had been determined that the
reason for the malfunction was the absence of
a ventilator or that a ventilation system could
have prevented the malfunction. The state
presented evidence from the claimant’s
supervisor, an experienced woodworker and
carpenter, who stated that the accumulation of
sawdust would not restrict the blade. The trial
court held that the claimant had not established
that the state was negligent.
On appellate review, in Rosa v. State, 881
N.Y.S.2d 527 (3d Dep’t 2009), the court
stated that while the defendant correctional
authorities owe a duty to provide inmates
engaged in work programs with reasonably
safe equipment, negligence cannot be inferred
solely from the fact that an accident happened.
In reviewing the evidence, the court found that
the claimant had not shown that an inspection
had been done following the accident to
determine what had caused the blade to stop
and claimant had failed to offer any competent
(worthy of belief) evidence to establish that the
accumulation of sawdust could have caused
the accident, or that a ventilator would have
prevented it. The claimant’s supervisor
presented evidence to the contrary. Thus, the

court found, there was no basis for disturbing
the trial court’s determination that claimant
had failed to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that defendant did not provide him
with safe equipment.

Defendants Must Plead and
Prove Comparative Negligence
Claimant, an inmate at Odgensburg C.F.,
who had slipped on an improperly cleaned
gymnasium floor and injured his shoulder,
brought a claim against the state alleging that
his injury was caused by the negligence of the
cleaning staff. At the close of the trial, the
court found that the defendant was negligent in
creating an unsafe condition but that the
claimant had a duty to observe the substance
on the floor that caused him to fall. The court
apportioned (divided) liability: 50% was the
defendant’s fault and 50% was the claimant’s
fault.
The claimant appealed the court’s
determination that he was 50% responsible for
the injury. In Jones v. State, 878 N.Y.S.2d
509 (3d Dep’t 2009) the appellate court
reversed the trial court’s apportionment
(division) of liability. The court noted that
comparative negligence is an affirmative
defense which must be pled and proved by the
party alleging it. While the defendants pled the
affirmative defense in their answer, in response
to the plaintiff’s demand for a bill of
particulars specifying the acts that he had
engaged in that were negligent, the defendants
responded that his injury was sustained by
tripping on his own feet or the feet of other
players; there was no allegation that claimant
was negligent by playing on a floor that he
should have seen was in dangerous condition.
Nor did the defendants advance this theory at
trial. Further the court found, defendants bore
the burden of proving comparative negligence
and there was no evidence that the claimant

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

was culpable in causing his injuries. Thus,
there was no basis for the trial court’s finding
that claimant and the defendants were equally
liable for causing the claimant’s injuries. The
court reversed that portion of the trial court’s
determination that held the claimant equally
liable for causing his injuries.

Federal Cases

Rule Prohibiting the
Organization of Work
Stoppages Not
Unconstitutional
While at Sing Sing C.F., the defendantofficer searched the inmate-plaintiff’s cell and
found several copies of a pamphlet entitled
“Wake Up.” The pamphlet, which the plaintiff
admitted he had written, urged inmates to
engage in work stoppages. The defendant
officer wrote a ticket charging the plaintiff
with violating the rule prohibiting organizing
other inmates to participate in a work
stoppage. On the second day of the hearing
on this charge, plaintiff stated that he no
longer wanted to participate. The hearing
officer found him guilty, the hearing was
affirmed on appeal, and plaintiff then filed a
§1983 action arguing that the defendant officer
wrote the misbehavior report in retaliation for
the plaintiff’s exercise of his First Amendment
right to freedom of speech.
In Pilgrim v. Luther, 571 F.3d 201 (2d Cir.
2009), the federal appellate court affirmed the
district court’s order granting summary
judgment to the defendants. In reaching this
result, the court reviewed its earlier decision in
Duamutef v. O’Keefe, 98 F.3d 22 (2d Cir.
1996), the only other decision in the Second

Page 17

Circuit which considered whether the rule in
question violated an inmate’s First Amendment
rights. In Duamutef, the plaintiff wrote a
petition, signed by 33 inmates, asking for
improved prison conditions and was charged
with the same rule violation as Plaintiff
Pilgrim. The Duamutef court recognized that
although the act of preparing and circulating a
petition implicates First Amendment rights of
freedom of speech and association, these rights
must be weighed against the prison’s
legitimate safety interests. Consistent with
United States Supreme Court precedent
established by Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78
(1987), the court wrote, the rule will be upheld
if it is reasonably related to legitimate
penological goals.
Here the court found, the rule supported
the penological goal of safeguarding the prison
from disorder and conduct that might lead to
violence or to collective action designed to
take over the prison. Thus, there was a valid
rational connection between the rule and a
governmental interest. So long as inmates
have the grievance system, regulations limiting
their rights to organize and petition are
reasonable restrictions designed to further the
government’s interest in the orderly
administration of prisons. For this reason, the
court affirmed the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to the defendants.

Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies And “Outside”
Health Care Providers
The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA) requires that prior to filing a federal
claim, prisoners must exhaust their
administrative remedies. In New York State,
to exhaust administrative remedies, inmates
must follow the procedures set forth in
Directive 4040, Inmate Grievance Program.
In Middleton v. Falk, 2009 WL 666397
(N.D.N.Y. March 10, 2009), the court

Page 18

examined the relationship between the
exhaustion requirement and care provided to
inmates by doctors who are not DOCS
employees.
While in DOCS custody, Plaintiff
Middleton had an eye condition that required
medical treatment by specialists. DOCS sent
him to a medical center where he was treated
by doctors who were not DOCS employees
(outside medical care providers). After three
surgeries over a period of approximately one
year by the outside medical providers, Plaintiff
Middleton had lost all vision in his left eye.
Believing that the loss of vision was caused by
deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs, Plaintiff Middleton sued two of the
outside medical care providers.
The outside medical care providers moved
for summary judgment alleging that the
plaintiff, who had not filed a grievance in
accordance with the Directive 4040, had not
exhausted his administrative remedies and
therefore the court should grant judgment in
favor of the defendants. The court ruled that
because 1) DOCS had contracts with the
outside medical care providers; 2) plaintiff
Middleton was treated by these doctors at the
request of DOCS, which was responsible for
providing medical care to him; and 3) the IGP
process would have afforded plaintiff
Middleton opportunities for a remedy and
DOCS the opportunity to correct the asserted
deficiencies, his claim of deliberate indifference
by the outside medical care providers was
subject to the requirement of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

Subscribe to Pro Se!
Pro Se is published four times a year. Pro
Se accepts individual subscription requests.
With a subscription, a copy of Pro Se will
be delivered directly to you via the facility
correspondence program. To subscribe,
send a request with your name, DIN
number and facility to: Pro Se, 114
Prospect Street, Ithaca, NY 14850.

Pro Se wants your opinion. Send your
comments, questions or suggestions about
the contents of Pro Se to: Pro Se, 41 State
Street, Suite M112, Albany, NY 12207.
Do not send requests for legal
representation to Pro Se. Requests for
legal representation and all other problems
should be sent to the PLS office that covers
your facility.
Pro Se On-Line
Inmates who have been released and/or
families of inmates, can read Pro Se on the
PLS website at: www.plsny.org.

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

Page 19

NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES
COUNTY DEFENDER OFFICES
ALBANY COUNTY
Thomas N. Dulin
Albany County Conflict Defender
112 State Street, Suite 1220
Albany, NY 12207
(518) 447-5532
(518) 447-7416 (fax)
Thomas.Dulin@albanycounty.com

BROOME COUNTY
Jay L. Wilber
Broome County Public Defender
229-231 State Street, 5th Floor
Binghamton, NY 13901
(607) 778-2403
(607) 778-2432 (fax)
jwilber@co.broome.ny.us

Peter M. Torncello
Albany County Public Defender
60 South Pearl St., 4th Fl.
Albany, NY 12207
(518) 447-7150
(518) 447-5533 (fax)
Peter.Torncello@albanycounty.com

CATTARAUGUS COUNTY
James I. McAuley
Administrator
Cattaraugus County Assigned
Counsel Plan
4 South Main Street
Franklinville, NY 14737
(716) 676-5524
(716) 676-3541 (fax)

ALLEGANY COUNTY
J. Timothy Embser
Administrator
Allegany County
Assigned Counsel Plan
Embser & Woltag, PC
164 North Main Street
Wellsville, NY 14895-1152
(585) 593-1090
(585) 593-6540 (fax)
law@embserwoltag.com
Barbara J. Kelley
Allegany County Public Defender
7 Court Street
Belmont, NY 14813
(585) 268-9246
(585) 268-5888 (fax)
Kelleybj@alleganyco.com
BRONX COUNTY
( See NEW YORK CITY)

Mark S. Williams
Cattaraugus County
Public Defender
175 North Union Street
Olean, NY 14760
(716) 373-0004
(716) 373-3462 (fax)
MSWilliams@cattco.org
CAYUGA COUNTY
Lloyd E. Hoskins
Administrator
Cayuga County Assigned Counsel
for the Indigent Program
152 Genesee Street
Auburn, NY 13021
(315) 253-1402
(315) 253-1544 (fax)
defender@co.cayuga.ny.us

CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY
William F. Coughlin
Chautauqua County
Public Defender
Hall R. Clothier Building
7 No. Erie St.,1st Fl, Rm 106
Mayville, NY 14757-1027
(716) 753-4376
(716) 753-4751 (fax)
Coughliw@co.chautauqua.ny.us
CHEMUNG COUNTY
Nancy Eraca Cornish
Chemung County Public Defender
163 Lake Street
P.O. Box 588
Elmira, NY 14902-0588
(607) 737-2969
(607) 737-2853 (fax)
jford@co.chemung.ny.us
Richard W. Rich, Jr.
Chemung County Public Advocate
219 Madison Avenue
Elmira, NY 14901
(607) 737-5577
(607) 737-2955 (fax)
RRich@co.chemung.ny.us
CHENANGO COUNTY
Alan E. Gordon
Chenango County Public Defender
5 Court Street, Room 212
Norwich, NY 13815
(607) 337-1870
(607) 337-1489 (fax)
publicdefender@co.chenango.ny.us

Page 20

CLINTON COUNTY
Richard E. Cantwell
Administrator
Clinton County
Assigned Counsel Program
178 Broad Street
Plattsburgh, NY 12901-2524
(518) 561-9251
(518) 561-9254 (fax)
firm@cantwelllaw.com
COLUMBIA COUNTY
Arlene A. Levinson
Columbia County Public Defender
610 State Street
Hudson, NY 12534
(518) 828-3410
(518) 828-4076 (fax)
drabick@govt.co.columbia.ny.us
Eugene Keeler
Columbia County
Conflict Public Defender
75 Spook Rock Road
Hudson, NY 12534
(518) 965-3563
eugenekeeler@yahoo.com

CORTLAND COUNTY
Keith Dayton
Cortland County Public Defender
60 Central Avenue, B5
Cortland, NY 13045-5590
(607) 753-5046
(607) 753-0781 (fax)
kdayton@cortland-co.org
Thomas H. Miller
Cortland County Conflict Defender
60 Central Avenue, B12
Cortland, NY 13045
(607) 758-5589
thmiller@cortland-co.org

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

DELAWARE COUNTY
Teresa Mulliken
Administrator
Delaware County
Assigned Counsel Plan
P.O. Box 204
Harpers Field, NY 13786
(607) 652-9790 (call this # to fax)
tmulliken@yahoo.com
DUTCHESS COUNTY
David Goodman
Dutchess County Public Defender
22 Market Street, 4th Fl.
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
(800) 660-8818
(845) 486-2266 (fax)
dgoodman@co.dutchess.ny.us
ERIE COUNTY
Robert D. Lonski
Administrator-Erie County
Bar Association Aid to Indigent
Prisoners Society, Inc.
170 Franklin Street, Suite 400
Buffalo, NY 14202
(716) 856-8804
(716) 856-0424 (fax)
rlonski@assigned.org
David C. Schopp
Executive Attorney
The Legal Aid Bureau
of Buffalo, Inc.
237 Main Street, Suite 1602
Buffalo, NY 14203
(716) 853-9555
(716) 853-3219 (fax)
dschopp@legalaidbuffalo.org
Helen W. Zimmermann
Chief Attorney of
Criminal Services
The Legal Aid Bureau of
Buffalo, Inc.
Public Defender Unit
Buffalo City Court
50 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, NY 14202
(716) 855-1553 (Ext. 43)
(716) 856-3951 (fax)

ESSEX COUNTY
Livingston Hatch
Essex County Public Defender
7551 Court Street
PO Box 217
Elizabethtown, NY 12932
(518) 873-3880
(518) 873-3888 (fax)
kking@co.essex.ny.us
FRANKLIN COUNTY
Thomas G. Soucia
Franklin County Public Defender
355 West Main St., Suite 237
Malone, NY 12953
(518) 481-1624
(518) 483-4690 (fax)
tsoucia@co.franklin.ny.us
Lorelei B. Smith Miller
Franklin County Conflict Defender
355 West Main St., Suite 252
Malone, NY 12953
(518) 481-1593
(518) 483-4690 (fax)
lmiller@co.franklin.ny.us
Shawn Fournier
Assigned Counsel Coordinator
Franklin County Assigned Counsel Plan
Franklin County Courthouse
355 West Main Street
Malone, NY 12953
(518) 481-1423
(518) 481-1425 (office)
sfournier@co.franklin.ny.us
FULTON COUNTY
J. Gerard McAuliffe, Jr.
Fulton County Public Defender
The Johnstown Professional
Office Complex
55 East Main Street, Suite 20
Johnstown, NY 12095
(518) 736-5820 (office)
(518) 762-0122 (fax)
mcauliffereception@hotmail.com

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

Page 21

GENESEE COUNTY
Gary A. Horton
Genesee County Public Defender
1 West Main Street
County Building
Batavia, NY 14020-3199
(585) 344-2550 Ext. 2280
(585) 344-8553 (fax)
ghorton@co.genesee.ny.us

JEFFERSON COUNTY
Thomas P. Goodwin
Administrator
Jefferson County
Assigned Counsel Plan
255 State Street
Carthage, NY 13619
(315) 493-0311
(315) 493-1097 (fax)
tpg@gisco.net

Randolph P. Zickl, Esq.
Administrator
Genesee County
Legal Assistance Corp.
81 Main Street
Batavia, NY 14021
(585) 343-0811 (office)
(585) 343-0880 (fax)
rzickl@choiceonemail.com

Julie Hutchins
Jefferson County Public Defender
175 Arsenal Street, 4th Floor
Watertown, NY 13601
(315) 785-3152
(315) 785-5060 (fax)
joannem@co.jefferson.ny.us

GREENE COUNTY
Dominic J. Cornelius
Greene County Public Defender
411 Main Street
P.O. Box 413
Catskill, NY 12414
(518) 719-3220
(518) 719-3785 (fax)
publicdefender@discovergreene.com

KINGS COUNTY
(See NEW YORK CITY)
LEWIS COUNTY
Michael F. Young
Lewis Defenders, PLLC
7659 North State Street, Suite 301
Lowville, NY 13367
(315) 376-7543
(315) 376-8766 (fax)
Law.young@yahoo.com

HAMILTON COUNTY
William Farber
Public Defense Coordinator
Hamilton County
Assigned Counsel Program
P.O. Box 205
Lake Pleasant, NY 12108
(518) 548-6651
(518) 548-7608 (fax)
hamcosup@frontiernet.net

James P. McClusky
Lewis County Conflict Defender
McClusky Law Firm
8 Main Street
PO Box 97
Adams, NY 13605
(315) 232-4551 (office)
(315) 232-2562 (fax)
mccluskylaw@yahoo.com

HERKIMER COUNTY
Keith Bowers
Administrator
Herkimer County
Assigned Counsel Program
207 N. Washington Street
Herkimer, NY 13350
(315) 866-0006
(315) 866-0689 (fax)

LIVINGSTON COUNTY
Marcea Clark Tetamore
Livingston County Public Defender
Livingston County Govt. Ctr.
6 Court Street, Room 109
Geneseo, NY 14454-1043
(585) 243-7028
(585) 243-7193 (fax)
mctetamore@co.livingston.ny.us

Norman Effman
Livingston County Conflict Defender
18 Linwood Avenue
Warsaw, NY 14569
(585) 786-8450
(585) 786-8478 (fax)
attlegal@yahoo.com
MADISON COUNTY
Paul H. Hadley
Madison County Public Defender
County Office Building
P.O. Box 576
Wampsville, NY 13163
(315) 366-2585
(315) 366-2583 (fax) or
(315) 366-2816 (fax)
paulhadley@frontiernet.net
Tina Wayland Smith
Administrator
Madison County Assigned Counsel Plan
P.O. Box 635, North Court St.
Wampsville, NY 13163-0635
(315) 366-2203
(315) 366-2502 (fax)
tws@co.madison.ny.us
MONROE COUNTY
Timothy P. Donaher
Monroe County Public Defender
Executive Office Building
10 North Fitzhugh Street
Rochester, NY 14614
(585) 753-4210
(585) 753-4234 (fax)
TDonaher@monroecounty.gov
Kristin F. Splain
Monroe County Conflict Defender
30 West Broad Street
Suite 306
Rochester, New York 14614
(585) 753-3480
(585) 753-3489 (fax)
KSplain@monroecounty.gov

Page 22

MONTGOMERY COUNTY
William F. Martuscello
Montgomery County Public Defender
County Annex Building
Park Street, PO Box 1500
Fonda, NY 12068
(518) 853-8305
(518) 853-8308 (fax)
rchicoski@co.montgomery.ny.us
NASSAU COUNTY
Patrick McCloskey
Administrator
Nassau County Assigned Counsel
Defender Plan
15th and West Streets
Mineola, NY 11501
(516) 747-8448
(516) 873-8032 (fax)
acdp@optonline.net
Kent Moston
Attorney in Chief
Legal Aid Society of Nassau County
One Helen Keller Way
Hempstead, NY 11550
(516) 560-6400
(516) 565-3694 (fax)
Kmoston@nclas.org
NEW YORK CITY
(Consists of the following counties:
Bronx, Kings, Queens, New York
and Richmond)
Lynn W. L. Fahey
Attorney-in-Charge
Appellate Advocates
2 Rector Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
(212) 693-0085
(212) 693-0878 (fax)
LFahey@appad.org

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

Jacqueline P. Flug
Administrator
Assigned Counsel Plan
for First Judicial Dept.
[Bronx & New York]
253 Broadway, Room 200
New York, NY 10007
(212) 676-0061 (general#)
(212) 676-0089 (fax)
jflug@cityhall.nyc.gov

Steven Banks
Executive Director &
Attorney-in-Chief
The Legal Aid Society
Central Administration
199 Water Street
New York, NY 10038
(212) 577-3300
(212) 809-1574 (fax)
sbanks@legal-aid.org

Barbara A. DiFiore
Administrator
Assigned Counsel Plan
For Second Department
2nd & 11th Judicial Districts
[Kings, Queens & Richmond]
253 Broadway, Room 200
New York, NY 10007
(212) 676-0055
(212) 676-0089 (fax)
BDifiore@cityhall.nyc.gov

Seymour James
Attorney-in-Charge
The Legal Aid Society
Criminal Practice
199 Water Street
New York, NY 10038
(212) 577-3300
(212) 809-2942 (fax)
swjames@legal-aid.org

Robin G. Steinberg
Executive Director
The Bronx Defenders
860 Courtlandt Avenue
Bronx, NY 10451
(718) 838-7878
(718) 665-0100 (fax)
robins@bronxdefenders.org
Lisa Schreibersdorf
Executive Director
Brooklyn Defender Services
177 Livingston Street, 5th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
(718) 254-0700
(718) 254-0897 (fax)
lschreib@bds.org
Robert S. Dean
Attorney-in-Charge
Center for Appellate Litigation
74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10006
(212) 577-2523
(212) 577-2535 (fax)
rdean@cfal.org

David C. Clarke
Attorney-In-Charge
The Legal Aid Society-Bronx
Criminal Practice
1020 Grand Concourse
Bronx, NY 10451
(718) 579-3000
(718) 588-2611 (fax)
dcclarke@legal-aid.org
Irwin Shaw
Attorney-In-Charge
The Legal Aid Society-NY County
Criminal Practice
49 Thomas Street
New York, NY 10013
(212) 298-5000
(212) 298-5252 (fax)
ishaw@legal-aid.org
Timothy Rountree
Attorney-in-Charge
The Legal Aid Society-Queens
Criminal Practice
120-46 Queens Boulevard
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
(718) 286-2000
(718) 286-2486 (fax)
trountree@legal-aid.org

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

Dawn Ryan
Attorney-in-Charge
The Legal Aid Society-Kings
Criminal Practice
111 Livingston Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
(718) 237-2000
(718) 237-8737 (fax)
dryan@legal-aid.org
Rick Jones
Executive Director
Neighborhood Defender Service, Inc.
317 Lenox Avenue
10th Floor
New York, NY 10027
(212) 876-5500
(212) 876-5586 (fax)
rjones@ndsny.org
Michael Coleman
Director
New York County Defender Services
225 Broadway, Suite 1100
New York, NY 10007
(212) 803-5100
(212) 571-6035 (fax)
mcoleman@nycds.org
Richard M. Greenberg
Attorney-in-Charge
Office of the Appellate Defender
11 Park Place, Suite 1601
New York, NY 10007
(212) 402-4100
(212) 402-4199 (fax)
rgreenberg@appellatedefender.org
Joseph Vaccarino
Executive Director
Queens Law Associates, PC
118-21 Queens Boulevard
Forest Hills, NY 11375
(718) 261-3047
(718) 261-0798 (fax)
jvqla@aol.com

Page 23

Michael Aronowsky
Paul A. Battiste
Arthur Suchow
Administrators
Staten Island
Legal Defense Services
Battiste, Aronowsky & Suchow, Inc.
60 Bay Street, Suite 802
Staten Island, NY 10301
(718) 354-3200
(718) 354-3210 (fax)
maronowsky@bas-si.org
pbattiste@bas-si.org
asuchow@bas-si.org
NIAGARA COUNTY
Robert M. Pusateri, Esq.
Conflict Defender & Administrator
Niagara County Conflict Office &
Assigned Counsel Plan
Niagara County Courthouse
175 Hawley Street
Lockport, NY 14094-2740
(716) 439-7310
(716) 439-7320 (fax)
robert.pusateri@niagaracounty.com
David J. Farrugia
Niagara County Public Defender
Niagara County Courthouse
175 Hawley Street
Lockport, NY 14094-2740
(716) 439-7071
(716) 439-7076 (fax)
David.Farrugia@niagaracounty.com
ONEIDA COUNTY
John Herbowy
Administrator
Oneida County Supplemental
Assigned Counsel Program
800 Park Avenue
Utica, NY 13501
(315) 798-5742
(315) 798-6425 (fax)
jherbowy@co.oneida.ny.us

Frank J. Nebush, Jr.
Oneida County Public Defender
Criminal Division
250 Boehlert Center
at Union Station
321 Main Street
Utica, NY 13501
(315) 798-5870
(315) 798-6419 (fax)
fnebush@ocgov.net
Frank J. Furno
Oneida County Public Defender
Civil Division
235 Elizabeth Street
Second Floor
Utica, NY 13501
(315) 266-6100
(315) 266-6105 (fax)
ffurno@ocgov.net
ONONDAGA COUNTY
Renee Captor
Administrator
Onondaga County Bar Association
Assigned Counsel Program, Inc.
109 South Warren Street
State Tower Bldg, Lobby Suite 6
Syracuse, NY 13202
(315) 476-2921
(315) 476-0576 (fax)
flam1ngo@aol.com
Susan R. Horn
Executive Director
Frank H. Hiscock
Legal Aid Society
351 South Warren Street
Syracuse, NY 13202-2057
(315) 422-8191
(315) 472-2819 (fax)
srhorn@wnylc.com

Page 24

ONTARIO COUNTY
Robert L. Gosper
Administrator
Ontario County Assigned Counsel
Plan
66 North Main Street
Canandaigua, NY 14424
(585) 394-9470
(585) 394-9272 (fax)
rlgosper@frontiernet.net

ORANGE COUNTY
Gary Abramson
Chief Attorney
The Legal Aid Society of
Orange County, Inc.
P.O. Box 328, 2 Court Lane
Goshen, NY 10924
(845) 291-2454
(845) 294-2638 (fax)
garya@warwick.net
Mark D. Stern
Administrator
Orange County
Assigned Counsel Plan
15 Matthews St., Suite 102
Goshen, NY 10924
(845) 294-7990
(845) 294-9233 (fax)
sternlaw@frontiernet.net
ORLEANS COUNTY
Sanford A. Church
Orleans County Public Defender
Courthouse Square
Albion, NY 14411
(585) 589-7335
(585) 589-2592 (fax)
publicdefender@orleansny.com

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

OSWEGO COUNTY
Stephen C. Greene, Jr.
Administrator
Oswego County
Assigned Counsel Plan
46 East Bridge Street
Oswego, NY 13126
(315) 349-8296 (office)
(315) 349-8298 (fax)
sgreene@oswegocounty.com
OTSEGO COUNTY
Richard A. Rothermel
Otsego County Public Defender
48 Dietz Street, Suite E
Oneonta, NY 13820
(607) 432-7410
(607) 433-2168 (fax)
Rothermel@verizon.net
PUTNAM COUNTY
Patrick J. Brophy
Chief Attorney
Putnam County
Legal Aid Society, Inc
19 Fair Street
Carmel, NY 10512
(845) 225-8466
(845) 225-0517 (fax)
legalpcaid@verizon.net
QUEENS COUNTY
(See NEW YORK CITY)
RENSSELAER COUNTY
Jerome K. Frost
Rensselaer County
Public Defender
Rensselaer County Courthouse
80 Second Street
Troy, NY 12180
(518) 270-4030
(518) 270-4033 (fax)
Jfrost@rensco.com

Sandra J. McCarthy
Rensselaer County
Conflict Defender
Conflict Defender Office
61 State Street
Troy, NY 12180
(518) 270-2802
(518) 270-2686 (fax)
smccarthy@nycap.rr.com
Stephen A. Pechenik
Administrator
Rensselaer County
Assigned Counsel Plan
Rensselaer County
Office Bldg.
Troy, NY 12180
(518) 270-2950
(518) 270-2961 (fax)
spechenik@rensco.com
RICHMOND COUNTY
(See NEW YORK CITY)
ROCKLAND COUNTY
Keith I. Braunfotel
Chair Administrator
Rockland County
Assigned Counsel Plan
Braunfotel & Frendel, LLC
120 North Main Street
New City, NY 10956
(845) 634-7701
(845) 634-7710 (fax)
keith@braunfotelandfrendel.com
James D. Licata
Rockland County Public Defender11 New
Hempstead Road
New City, NY 10956
(845) 638-5660
(845) 638-5667 (fax)
licataj@co.rockland.ny.us

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

SAINT LAWRENCE COUNTY
Francis P. Cappello
Administrator
St. Lawrence County
Assigned Counsel Plan
76 Market Street
Potsdam, NY 13676
(315) 265-2747
(315) 265-2749 (fax)
fcappell@twcny.rr.com
Mary E. Rain
St. Lawrence County Public Defender
48 Court Street
Canton, NY 13617
(315) 379-2393
(315) 386-8241 (fax)
mrain@co.st-lawrence.ny.us
(vacant)
St. Lawrence County
Conflict Defender
48 Court Street
Canton, NY 13617
(315) 379-2282
(315) 379-2300 (fax)
_____@co.st-lawrence.ny.us
SARATOGA COUNTY
John H. Ciulla, Jr.
Saratoga County Public Defender
& Assigned Counsel Administrator
40 McMaster Street
Ballston Spa, NY 12020
(518) 884-4795
(518) 884-4789 (fax)
publicdefender@saratogacountyny.gov
SCHENECTADY COUNTY
Mark Caruso
Schenectady County Public Defender
519 State Street
Schenectady, NY 12305-2111
(518) 386-2266
(518) 386-2814 (fax)
Markcaruso@schenectadycounty.com

Page 25

Steven X. Kouray
Schenectady County Conflict
Defender
620 State Street, 4th Floor
Schenectady, NY 12305
(518) 388-4782
(518) 388-4796 (fax)
Howard G. Carpenter, Jr.
Administrator
Schenectady County
Assigned Counsel Plan
620 State Street
Schenectady, NY 12307
(518) 388-4276
(518) 388-4493 (fax)
Howard.Carpenter@
schenectadycounty.com
SCHOHARIE COUNTY
Raynor Duncombe
Administrator
Schoharie County
Assigned Counsel Plan
P.O. Box 490
319 Main Street
Schoharie, NY 12157-0490
(518) 295-7515
(518) 295-7519 (fax)
SCHUYLER COUNTY
Holly L. Mosher
Schuyler County Public Defender
105 9th Street, Unit 7
Watkins Glen, NY 14891
(607) 535-6400
(fax)
hmosher@co.schuyler.ny.us
Paul R. Corradini
Schuyler County Conflict Defender
PO Box 1224
Elmira, NY 14902-1224
(607) 731-2039 (work)
(607) 734-0564 (fax)
Paul.corradini@gmail.com

SENECA COUNTY
Michael J. Mirras
Seneca County Public Defender
PO Box 702
Seneca Falls, NY 13148
(315) 568-4975
(315) 568-2324 (fax)
mjmirras@rochester.rr.com
STEUBEN COUNTY
Byrum W. Cooper, Jr.
Steuben County Public Defender
3 East Pulteney Square
Bath, NY 14810
(607) 776-9631 Ext. 2410
(607) 664-2496 (fax)
tracys@co.steuben.ny.us
David G. Wallace
Steuben County Conflict Defender
& Assigned Counsel Administrator
108 East Steuben Street
Bath, NY 14810
(607) 377-7876
(607) 776-5591 (fax)
dgwlaw@verizon.net
SUFFOLK COUNTY
Louis Mazzola
Assistant Chief
Attorney-in-Charge
Legal Aid Society of Suffolk County
5 Shore Lane, First Floor
Bay Shore, NY 11706
(631) 854-0401
(631) 854-0770 (fax)
Lmazzola@sclas.org
Robert C. Mitchell
Attorney-in-Charge
Legal Aid Society of Suffolk County
5 Shore Lane, First Floor
Bay Shore, NY 11706
(631) 854-0401
(631) 854-0770 (fax)
Mitchell5496@yahoo.com

Page 26

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

David H. Besso
Administrator
Assigned Counsel Defender
Plan of Suffolk County
120 Fourth Avenue
PO Box 5591
Bay Shore, NY 11706
(631) 666-5766
(631) 666-8401 (fax)
dbessoltbsw@optonline.net

TOMPKINS COUNTY
Robert W. Stolp
Administrator
Tompkins County
Assigned Counsel Program
171 East State St., Suite 227
Center Ithaca Box 149
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 272-7487
(607) 272-7489 (fax)

SULLIVAN COUNTY
Joel M. Proyect
President
Sullivan County
Conflict Legal Aid Bureau
PO Box 157
Breezy Hill Road
Parksville, NY 12768
(845) 292-0415
(845) 292-2601 (fax)

Julia P. Hughes
Assigned Counsel Coordinator
Tompkins County
Assigned Counsel Program
171 East State St., Suite 227
Center Ithaca Box 149
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 272-7487
(607) 272-7489 (fax)
jhughes@tompkins-co.org

Stephan Schick
Executive Director
Sullivan Legal Aid Panel, Inc.
11 Bank Street
Monticello, NY 12701
(845) 794-4094
(845) 794-0119 (fax)
schickhavas@hotmail.com

ULSTER COUNTY
Lewis C. Kirschner
County Treasurer/Administrator
Ulster County Assigned Counsel Plan
244 Fair Street
PO Box 1800
Kingston, NY 12402
(845) 340-3460
(845) 340-3430 (fax)
lkir@co.ulster.ny.us

TIOGA COUNTY
Mark A. Dixson
Administrator
Tioga County Assigned Counsel Plan
56 Main Street
Owego, NY 13827
(607) 687-8253
(607) 687-7003 (fax)
dixsonm@co.tioga.ny.us
George C. Awad, Jr.
Tioga County Public Defender
171 Main Street
PO Box 507
Owego, NY 13827
(607) 687-1000
(607) 687-6075 (fax)
geocawadjresq@yahoo.com

Andrew I. Kossover
Ulster County Public Defender
18 Lucas Avenue
Kingston, NY 12401
(845) 340-3232
(845) 340-3744 (fax)
akos@co.ulster.ny.us
WARREN COUNTY
John P. Wappett
Warren County Public Defender
1340 State Route 9
Lake George, NY 12845
(518) 761-6207
(518) 761-6208 (fax)
wappettj@co.warren.ny.us

Joy McLaughlin LaFountain
Administrator/Coordinator
Warren County
Assigned Counsel Plan
1340 State Route 9
Lake George, NY 12845
(518) 761-6460
(518) 761-6443 (fax)
mclaughlinj@co.warren.ny.us
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Patrick E. Barber
Washington County Public Defender
117 McIntyre Street
PO Box 393
Fort Edward, NY 12828
(518) 747-2823
(518) 747-2824 (fax)
Patrickbarber1@verizon.net
Ronald Daigle
Washington County Conflict Defender
53 Quaker Street
PO Box 105
Granville, NY 12832
(518) 642-8182
(518) 642-8191 (fax)
rdaigleesq@yahoo.com
WAYNE COUNTY
Ronald C. Valentine
Wayne County Public Defender
County Courthouse Building
26 Church Street, 2nd Floor
Lyons, NY 14489
(315) 946-7472
(315) 946-7478 (fax)
rvalentine@co.wayne.ny.us
WESTCHESTER COUNTY
Stephen J. Pittari
Chief Counsel &
Executive Director
Legal Aid Society of
Westchester County
One North Broadway, 9th Floor
White Plains, NY 10601
(914) 286-3400
(914) 682-4112 (fax)
sjp1128@aol.com

Vol. 19 No. 3 Summer 2009

WYOMING COUNTY
Eric T. Dadd
Administrator
Wyoming County
Assigned Counsel Plan
11 Exchange Street
PO Box 238
Attica, NY 14011
(585) 591-1724
(585) 591-1722 (fax)
mail@daddandnelson.com

Page 27

Norman Effman
Executive Director of the
Wyoming County-Attica
Legal Aid Bureau, Inc. and
Wyoming County Public Defender
18 Linwood Avenue
Warsaw, NY 14569
(585) 786-8450
(585) 786-8478 (fax)
attlegal@yahoo.com

YATES COUNTY
Edward J. Brockman
Yates County Public Defender
159 South Main Street
P.O. Box 457
Naples, NY 14512
(585) 374-6439
(585) 374-6344 (fax)
1brockman@frontiernet.net
Dianne S. Lovejoy
Administrator
Yates County
Assigned Counsel Program
126 Main Street, PO Box 412Penn Yan,
NY 14527
(315) 531-3441
(315) 531.3442 (fax)
yateslawpy@yanoo.com
The names, addresses and phone and
fax number provided on this list were
compiled in August 2009.

PLS OFFICES AND THE FACILITIES SERVED
ALBANY: 41 State Street, Suite M112, Albany, NY 12207
Prisons Served: Arthurkill, Bayview, Beacon, Bedford Hills, Mt. McGregor, Summit Shock, CNYPC, Coxsackie,
Downstate, Eastern, Edgecombe, Fishkill, Fulton, Great Meadow, Greene, Greenhaven, Hale Creek, Hudson,
Lincoln, Marcy, Midstate, Mid-Orange, Mohawk, Oneida, Otisville, Queensboro, Shawangunk, Sing Sing, Sullivan,
Taconic, Ulster, Wallkill, Walsh, Washington, Woodbourne
BUFFALO: Statler Towers, Suite 1360, 107 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14202
Prisons Served: Albion, Attica, Buffalo, Collins, Gowanda, Groveland, Lakeview, Livingston, Orleans, Rochester,
Wende, Wyoming
ITHACA: 102 Prospect Street, Ithaca, NY 14850
Prisons Served: Auburn, Butler, Camp Georgetown, Camp Pharsalia, Cape Vincent, Cayuga, Elmira, Five Points,
Monterey Shock, Southport, Watertown, Willard
PLATTSBURGH: 121 Bridge Street, Suite 202, Plattsburgh, NY 12901
Prisons Served: Adirondack, Altona, Bare Hill, Camp Gabriels, Chateaugay, Clinton, Franklin, Gouverneur, Lyon
Mountain, Moriah Shock, Ogdensburg, Riverview, Upstate

EDITORS: BETSY HUTCHINGS, ESQ., JOEL LANDAU, ESQ.,
KAREN MURTAGH-MONKS, ESQ.
COPY EDITING AND PRODUCTION: ALETA ALBERT, FRANCES GOLDBERG
DISTRIBUTION: BETH HARDESTY