Opinion
Argued September 15, 1999
November 8, 1999
Matthew Muraskin, Hempstead, N.Y. (Kent V. Moston and Tammy Feman of counsel), for appellant in both proceedings.
Owen B. Walsh, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Gerald R. Podlesak of counsel), for respondents Nassau County Sheriff's Department and Sheriff of Nassau County, Joseph P. Jablonsky in both proceedings.
Eliot L. Spitzer, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Michael S. Belohlavek and Marion R. Buchbinder of counsel), for respondent Glenn Goord.
SONDRA MILLER, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, DAVID S. RITTER, ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
In related proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel the Nassau County Sheriff's Department to credit 61 days of good time to the time served by the petitioner, Radtchenko Nickolay (Proceeding No. 1), and to compel the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional Services and the Nassau County Sheriff's Department to credit the same 61 days of good time (Proceeding No. 2), the appeals are from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Honorof, J.), entered June 28, 1999, which denied the petition in Proceeding No. 1, and (2) a judgment of the same court, also entered June 28, 1999, which denied the petition in Proceeding No. 2. The notices of appeal from an order dated November 6, 1998, in Proceeding No. 1 and an order dated April 9, 1999, in Proceeding No. 2 are treated as premature notices of appeal from the respective judgments (see, CPLR 5520[c]).
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner failed to establish that the certification provided by the Sheriff of Nassau County pursuant toCorrection Law § 600-a was improper (see, Penal Law § 70.30[3]; see also, Matter of Hawkins v. Coughlin, 72 N.Y.2d 158 ), or that the State Department of Correctional Services improperly calculated the good behavior time to be credited to him (see, Correction Law § 803[1]; Penal Law § 70.40[1] [b]). Accordingly, the petitions were properly denied.
The parties' remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be addressed in view of our determination.
S. MILLER, J.P., O'BRIEN, RITTER, and FLORIO, JJ., concur.