| In NYC 18 Hours and 926 New
Lawsuits Including Bronx Habeus for COVID
Delay
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC
- Guardian
UK - Honduras
- The
Source
NYC COURTHOUSES,
May 25 – The filing of
lawsuit was re-opened after
the Coronavirus shut down on
May 25 - Memorial Day - and in
the first four hours here was
the scorecard in the five
boroughs of New York City, as
compiled by Inner City Press:
Manhattan: 29
lawsuits; Bronx: 24 suits;
Queens: eight new cases;
Staten Island: two suits; and
the leader, Brooklyn, with 44
new cases.
By 6:30 pm, the
cases filed NYC-wide
were up
to 926. Manhattan
had jumped to 229,
Queens to 153, Staten
Island to 28, #Brooklyn
to 332 and The
Bronx to 184,
including this
one:
"Derrick Buggs,
is accused of violating the
conditions of his parole, but
he has been denied his right a
final revocation hearing
within 90 days after waiver of
the preliminary hearing.
2. As of the
filing of this Petition, it is
now 95 days since the waiver
of the preliminary hearing,
yet the Department of
Corrections and Community
Supervision (“DOCCS”) has not
afforded him a final
revocation hearing. 3. The
Board of Parole’s regulations
governing the revocation
process require mandatory
detention of all people
accused of violating parole.
Under 9 N.Y.C.R.R. §
8005.7(a)(5), if a preliminary
hearing is held and probable
cause is found, the hearing
officer “shall direct that the
alleged violator be held for
further action pursuant to
section 8004.3.” The same
holds true if the preliminary
hearing is waived because
waiver substitutes for a
finding of probable cause.
4. New York
requires that the final
revocation hearing must be
scheduled within 90 days from
a finding of probable cause at
the preliminary hearing or its
waiver. N.Y. Exec. Law § 259-
i(3)(f)(i). 5. If DOCCS fails
to hold a final hearing within
the prescribed statutory time
frame, the parole warrant must
be vacated, and the alleged
violator released from custody
and restored to community
supervision. See People ex
rel. Levy v Dalsheim, 48
N.Y.2d 1019 (1980) aff’g based
on decision below, 66 A.D.2d
827 (2d Dept. 1978) (granting
habeas petition based on
violation of Petitioner’s
right to a timely final
hearing and ordering immediate
restoration to parole
supervision rather than a new
final hearing because “[t]o
merely order a hearing within
a specified time would render
the 90-day limit a nullity”).
6. The statutory
timeframe to hold the final
hearing serves a crucial
function at all times. It
safeguards a parolee’s liberty
interest protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment. See
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S.
471, 482, 92 S. Ct. 2593,
2601, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1972).
It codifies the due process
requirement that the hearing
take place within a reasonable
timeframe after a parolee has
been taken into custody. See
id. Where due process
protections are at stake, the
principle that people have the
“right to be heard before
being condemned to suffer
grievous loss of any kind . .
. is a principle basic to our
society.” Mathews v. Eldridge
424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976). 7.
The COVID-19 pandemic has
necessitated changes in the
way revocation hearings are
conducted. On information and
belief, PRDU attorneys and
DOCCS officials met on March
16 and March 18 to discuss the
need for a remote hearing
system. It was decided that
until video hearings could be
set up, DOCCS would hold
hearings remotely by a
telephone system called WebEx,
which required DOC to install
telephones in the DOC legal
booths at each facility in
order for clients to be able
to participate. To date, DOCCS
has failed to establish a
consistently successful
alternative system to resume
regular hearings. This failure
is exacerbated by the fact
that COVID-19 is spreading
like wildfire through the New
York City jail system.
Petitioner is deeply worried
he will become infected the
longer he remains
incarcerated, and uncertain of
his fate if he does become
infected. This petition seeks
his immediate release from
custody because of the denial
of his due process and
statutory right to a timely
final revocation hearing."
On May 22,
NYS Chief Administrative Judge
Lawrence K. Marks announced in
a memo: "This expanded use of
NYSCEF will permit a
significant broadening of
civil litigation in a manner
that continues to ensure the
highest measure of health and
safety to judges, court
personnel, and the public."
Inner City
Press will be covering these,
and the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of
New York it is based in.
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|
,
