Citation Numbers: 115 A.D.2d 226, 496 N.Y.S.2d 149, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54472
Filed Date: 11/15/1985
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/28/2024
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner, an inmate at Attica Correctional Facility, alleged that the Department of Correctional Services unconstitutionally recouped moneys from his inmate account for postage provided him by the Department. Special Term agreed with petitioner and ordered the Department to restore all moneys it recouped from petitioner’s account.
The recoupment was made pursuant to a Department directive which instituted a program providing inmates free postage for five letters per week and requiring inmates to pay for postage for all letters in excess of that number. The directive provides that inmates may obtain excess postage by signing a form authorizing the Department to deduct the cost from their inmate accounts.
In holding that this practice is unconstitutional, Special Term relied upon the case of James v Strange (407 US 128). There, a Kansas statute provided for the docketing of a
Here, unlike the procedure condemned in James v Strange (supra), no judgment is docketed against the indigent defendant and there is no provision for recoupment after he is released from prison. Thus, petitioner has not been denied equal protection of the law, for there is a rational distinction between the recoupment of money from an inmate’s account and a garnishment against the wages of a judgment debtor. As emphasized by the court in James v Strange (supra), a judgment debtor depends upon his wages to support himself and his family. A prison inmate, on the other hand, is supported by the State, which supplies his necessities, and any money he receives while in prison is not provided for the purpose of supporting his family. Moreover, recoupment from an inmate’s account will not affect his incentive to seek legitimate employment upon his release.
We find no other constitutional prohibition against the practice employed by the State. Reasonable regulations limiting the amount of free postage for prison inmates do not contravene their constitutional right to meaningful access to