People ex rel. Henderson v New York State Dept. of CorrectionalServs.
2008 NY Slip Op 07483 [55 AD3d 1416]
October 3, 2008
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 10, 2008


The People of the State of New York ex rel. Charles Henderson,Appellant, v New York State Department of Correctional Services,Respondent.

[*1]Wyoming County-Attica Legal Aid Bureau, Warsaw (Neal J. Mahoney of counsel), forpetitioner-appellant.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), forrespondent-respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), enteredOctober 29, 2007 in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment denied the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law withoutcosts, the habeas corpus proceeding is converted to a CPLR article 78 proceeding in the nature ofprohibition, the petition is granted and judgment is granted in favor of petitioner as follows: "It isADJUDGED that respondent is prohibited from imposing upon petitioner a period of postreleasesupervision."

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding contending that respondentlacked the authority to impose a period of postrelease supervision because the sentencing court had notdone so. We note at the outset that, because petitioner has been released from custody and restored topostrelease supervision, habeas corpus relief is no longer available to him (see People ex rel. Gill v Greene, 48 AD3d1003, 1004 [2008]). Instead of dismissing the proceeding as moot, however, we convert theproceeding to one pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, and we consider the meritsof the appeal (see CPLR 103 [c]; People ex rel. Eaddy v Goord, 48 AD3d 1307, 1308 [2008];Gill, 48 AD3d at 1004). As petitioner correctly notes, the sentencing court did not impose aperiod of postrelease supervision and, "[b]ecause CPL 380.20 and 380.40 collectively provide thatonly a judge may impose a . . . sentence [of postrelease supervision], we conclude that[respondent] may not do so" (Matter ofGarner v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 10 NY3d 358, 360 [2008]; see People ex rel. Gerard v Kralik, 51AD3d 1045 [2008]; People ex rel.Foote v Piscotti, 51 AD3d 1407 [2008]; People ex rel. Lewis v Warden, Otis Baum Correctional Ctr., 51 AD3d512 [2008]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Centra, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.