From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Dixon v. Struna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 26, 1997
244 A.D.2d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

November 26, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court (Keegan, J.).


Petitioner, an inmate at a State correctional facility, challenges the 1996 denial of his request to participate in a temporary work release program on various procedural and constitutional grounds, arguing that he is entitled to have respondents reconsider his application. However, inasmuch as petitioner reapplied for temporary release in 1997 and was again denied participation following reconsideration, the appeal is now moot (see, Matter of Roper v. Recore, 222 A.D.2d 911; Matter of Prescott v. Coughlin, 221 A.D.2d 785).

In any event, were we to address the merits, we perceive no basis for disturbing respondents' determination because the denial was rationally based in fact and violated neither a statutory mandate nor petitioner's constitutional rights. Contrary to petitioner's contention, applicable law did not prohibit respondents from considering the nature of the convictions for which he was incarcerated in denying his application (see, 7 NYCRR 1900.4 [c] [1]; Matter of Rossney v. Pataki, 239 A.D.2d 632, 633-634). Moreover, because participation in a temporary work release program is a privilege, rather than a right, the ex post facto doctrine is inapplicable (see, Matter of Rand v. Coughlin, 229 A.D.2d 803; Matter of McCormack v. Posillico, 213 A.D.2d 913). Petitioner's remaining constitutional arguments are unsupported by the record, which does not reveal that the administrative process was procedurally unsound or tainted by racial discrimination (see, 7 NYCRR 1904.2; see also, Matter of Santiago v. Recore, 242 A.D.2d 773). Finally, inasmuch as the denial of petitioner's application was premised upon his bail jumping conviction and the serious nature of his criminal history, we cannot conclude that it was irrational (see, Matter of Montgomery v. Recore, 217 A.D.2d 777; Matter of Jones v. Coughlin, 201 A.D.2d 823).

We have reviewed petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, White and Spain, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Dixon v. Struna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Nov 26, 1997
244 A.D.2d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Matter of Dixon v. Struna

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of LAWRENCE DIXON, Appellant, v. CURT STRUNA, as Temporary…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Nov 26, 1997

Citations

244 A.D.2d 827 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
666 N.Y.S.2d 519

Citing Cases

Wallman v. Joy

Petitioner challenges the October 2001 denial of his request to participate in a temporary work release…

Matter of Scarola v. Goord

In our view, the denial of petitioner's request for a merit time allowance was rationally based on his…