| Matter of Martin v Central Off. Review Comm. of N.Y. State Dept. ofCorrectional Servs. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00597 [69 AD3d 1237] |
| January 28, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of James Martin, Appellant, v Central Office ReviewCommittee of New York State Department of Correctional Services,Respondent. |
—[*1] Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Zainab A. Chaudhry of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McNamara, J.), entered June 17, 2008 inAlbany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLRarticle 78, to review a determination of respondent denying his grievance.
In December 1982, as the result of a crime spree perpetrated by petitioner and severalcodefendants, he was sentenced by Nassau County Court (Harrington, J.) to an aggregate prisonterm of 1,688 to 4,104 years for his conviction of various counts of attempted murder, rape,sodomy, assault, robbery, aggravated sexual assault and burglary. In June 1983, petitioner againappeared before that court for sentencing on separate convictions for two counts of murder in thesecond degree, three counts of burglary in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the firstdegree. Those sentences, which aggregated to 25 years to life, were ordered to be servedconcurrently with one another, but consecutive to those sentences previously imposed onpetitioner. Subsequent to his 1983 sentences, the Department of Correctional Services(hereinafter DOCS) calculated petitioner's sentence to be 1,751
In 1994, petitioner commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the calculation ofhis sentence by DOCS. Supreme Court (Torraca, J.) dismissed the petition on the merits. In1997, petitioner commenced another proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to [*2]challenge his sentence calculation and Supreme Court (Dadd, J.),upon motion by respondent, dismissed the petition as barred by the doctrines of res judicata andcollateral estoppel. In 1998, petitioner moved in Nassau County Court (Dillon, J.), pursuant toCPL 440.20 (1), to set aside the sentences and that motion was denied. In 2007, respondentdenied petitioner's inmate grievance challenging the calculation of his sentence, and this CPLRarticle 78 proceeding ensued. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition based on the principlesof res judicata and collateral estoppel and Supreme Court granted the motion and dismissed thepetition. Petitioner appeals and we now affirm.
"Res judicata will bar litigation of a claim that was either raised, or could have been raised,in a prior action provided that the party to be barred had a full and fair opportunity to litigate anycause of action arising out of the same transaction and the prior disposition was a final judgmenton the merits" (Kinsman vTuretsky, 21 AD3d 1246, 1246 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 702 [2005] [citationsomitted]; see Landau, P.C. v LaRossa,Mitchell & Ross, 11 NY3d 8, 13 [2008]; Matter of LaRocco v Goord, 43 AD3d 500, 500 [2007]). Similarly,collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating any issue that was necessarily decided in aprior proceeding between the parties (see People ex rel. Spaulding v Woods, 63 AD3d 1456, 1457[2009]; Matter of LaRocco v Goord, 43 AD3d at 500). Inasmuch as petitioner hasrepeatedly litigated his contention that DOCS erred in its computation of his sentence, and thatissue was specifically decided in Supreme Court's order dismissing petitioner's 1994 petition, wefind that both res judicata and collateral estoppel operate to preclude petitioner from litigatingthis issue again.
Cardona, P.J., Spain, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that thejudgment is affirmed, without costs.