| Matter of State of New York v Matter |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08507 [78 AD3d 1694] |
| November 19, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of State of New York, Appellant, v Michael Matter,Respondent. (Appeal No. 1.) |
—[*1] Emmett J. Creahan, Director, Mental Hygiene Legal Service, Buffalo (Jeffrey T. Lacey of counsel),for respondent-respondent.
Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (RichardC. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered March 30, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article10. The order and judgment dismissed the petition.
It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on thelaw without costs, the petition is reinstated and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, NiagaraCounty, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: In appeal No. 1, theState of New York (State) appeals from an order and judgment dismissing its petition pursuant toMental Hygiene Law article 10, seeking a determination that Michael Matter is a sex offender whorequires civil commitment. In appeal No. 2, respondent, the Commissioner of the State Office ofMental Health (OMH), appeals from a judgment granting the petition of Michael Matter seeking a writof habeas corpus and directing his release from its custody.
Matter had been incarcerated since 1997, and the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS)calculated his maximum expiration date to be June 6, 2008. On June 2, 2008, the State commenced theproceeding in appeal No. 1, and Matter was transferred to the custody of OMH upon his release fromthe custody of DOCS. Matter thereafter moved to dismiss the petition in the proceeding inappeal No. 1 and, as noted, he commenced the proceeding in appeal No. 2 seeking a writ of habeascorpus directing his release from the custody of OMH. According to Matter, his imprisonment wasbased on a miscalculated sentence and he therefore was not a lawfully detained sex offender within themeaning of Mental Hygiene Law § 10.03 (g) (1) and was not subject to the State's jurisdictionwhen the article 10 petition was filed. Supreme Court erred in granting the relief sought by Matter inboth appeals. Even assuming, arguendo, that Matter's sentence was improperly calculated by DOCS,rendering his imprisonment unlawful at the time the article 10 proceeding was commenced, we concludethat the court erred in dismissing the petition in appeal No. 1 and in granting the petition in [*2]appeal No. 2. The Court of Appeals has made it clear that, for thepurposes of article 10, "[t]he legality of [a prisoner's] custody is irrelevant" (People ex rel. Joseph II. v Superintendent ofSouthport Correctional Facility, 15 NY3d 126, 134 [2010], rearg denied 15 NY3d847; see People ex rel. Mental Hygiene Legal Serv. v Sawyer, 78 AD3d 1653 [2010]). TheCourt of Appeals in Joseph II. held that prisoners were within the coverage of the statute,which was read as "applying to offenders actually imprisoned, even if the procedure that led to theirimprisonment was flawed" (15 NY3d at 130). Thus, the Court specifically rejected the argument that"custody" implied "lawful custody" (id. at 133). The Court noted that article 10 can be applied"to those whose imprisonment resulted from a procedural error" (id. at 135).
We conclude that Joseph II. is dispositive of these appeals. Joseph II. rendersMatter subject to the State's article 10 jurisdiction. Thus, his habeas corpus petition and motion todismiss the article 10 proceeding should have been denied. Present—Martoche, J.P., Centra,Carni, Lindley and Pine, JJ.