IN RE MICHAEL SOOKOO

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 508352.

Attorney(S)

Michael Sookoo, Ossining, appellant pro se. Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, Albany (Owen Demuth of counsel), for.

Judges

Cardona, P.J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Respondent (Michael Sookoo) was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced in 2001 to 20 years to life. In March 2009 the Department of Correctional Services notified petitioner that respondent's inmate account exceeded $10,000 (Executive Law § 632-a[b]). That information was relayed to the victim's mother, who informed petitioner she intended to commence a civil action for money damages. Petitioner initiated a proceeding under the Son of Sam Law (Executive Law § 632-a [5], [6]) seeking a preliminary injunction to preserve the funds. Supreme Court (McNamara, J.) granted the preliminary injunction; respondent appealed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether petitioner had authority to seek provisional injunctive relief on behalf of the victim's mother (i.e., whether the mother qualified as a "representative" under the Executive Law and whether petitioner acted at her request).
Whether certain funds in respondent's account (specifically $2,452 drawn from a pension fund) qualify as "earned income" and therefore are not "[f]unds of a convicted person" recoverable in a civil action under Executive Law § 632-a.
Whether injunctive relief (preliminary injunction) is an available and appropriate remedy to preserve funds in a proceeding under Executive Law § 632-a.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (Respondent's) Arguments

Petitioner acted without authority to seek a provisional remedy on behalf of the victim's mother because she allegedly does not qualify as a "representative" under the Executive Law and did not request petitioner to move for injunctive relief.
Certain funds in his account (notably $2,452 from a pension fund) constitute "earned income" and therefore cannot be considered "[f]unds of a convicted person" recoverable in a civil action under Executive Law § 632-a(c), (f).

Petitioner's Position

Petitioner moved for a preliminary injunction under the Son of Sam Law (Executive Law § 632-a [5], [6]) to preserve the inmate account funds upon notification that the account exceeded $10,000, and the record demonstrates petitioner satisfied the statutory criteria for a preliminary injunction (CPLR 6311, 6312).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
City of Albany v Central Locating Serv., 228 AD2d 920, 922	Procedural default: contentions not raised in the trial court are not properly before the appellate court.	Used to hold respondent's challenge to petitioner's authority was not properly before the appellate court because it was not advanced below.
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v Bank of Richmondville, 203 AD2d 851, 853	Procedural default doctrine supporting that appellate review is limited to issues raised below.	Applied alongside City of Albany to deny consideration of respondent's contention not raised in Supreme Court.
Matter of New York State Crime Victims Bd. v Harris, 68 AD3d 1269, 1271-1272	Authority that injunctive remedies are permitted in Son of Sam proceedings despite general rule limiting injunctive relief in actions for money damages.	Cited to support availability of injunctive relief and to uphold the grant of a preliminary injunction in this case.
Matter of New York State Crime Victims Bd. v Mitchell, 12 AD3d 870, lv denied 4 NY3d 707	Precedent upholding injunctive relief under the Son of Sam statute.	Referenced as additional authority affirming the propriety of injunctive relief in similar proceedings.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first declined to consider respondent's contention that petitioner lacked authority to seek provisional relief on the victim's mother's behalf because that contention was not raised in Supreme Court and thus is procedurally barred on appeal (citing City of Albany v Central Locating Serv. and General Motors Acceptance Corp. v Bank of Richmondville).

On the "earned income" argument, the court explained that the earned/unearned income distinction is relevant only to determine whether petitioner must be notified; it does not affect a crime victim's or representative's ability to recover such income in a civil action. The court relied on legislative materials (Governor's Approval Memorandum and Senate Introducer Memorandum) to support that interpretation of Executive Law § 632-a.

Regarding injunctive relief, the court acknowledged that injunctions are generally unavailable in actions for money damages but observed that injunctive remedies are permitted in Son of Sam-type cases (citing Matter of New York State Crime Victims Bd. v Harris). Finding the record showed petitioner satisfied the statutory criteria for a preliminary injunction (CPLR 6311, 6312), the court concluded Supreme Court properly granted the injunction. The court additionally referenced Matter of New York State Crime Victims Bd. v Mitchell as supporting authority. The court disposed of remaining contentions as without merit.

Holding and Implications

ORDER AFFIRMED, without costs.

Direct effect: The Supreme Court order granting petitioner a preliminary injunction to preserve respondent's inmate account funds was affirmed, leaving the injunctive preservation of the funds in place. The opinion does not announce any new legal rule or broader precedent beyond applying existing authorities; no broader implications were articulated.

Show full summary ...

In the Matter of NEW YORK STATE CRIME VICTIMS BOARD, on Behalf of SYLVIA HAYES, Respondent, v. MICHAEL SOOKOO, Appellant.

Cardona, P.J.

Respondent was convicted of murder in the second degree and was sentenced in 2001 to a prison term of 20 years to life. In March 2009, petitioner was notified by the Department of Correctional Services that respondent's inmate account exceeded $10,000 ( see Executive Law § 632-a [b]). This information was relayed to the victim's mother who then notified petitioner that she, as the representative of the victim, intended to commence a civil action for money damages against respondent (see Executive Law § 621; § 632-a [2] [c]; [3]). Thereafter, petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to the Son of Sam Law seeking a preliminary injunction to preserve the subject funds ( see Executive Law § 632-a, [5], [6]). Supreme Court granted petitioner's application, and this appeal ensued.

Initially, respondent contends that petitioner acted without authority in seeking a provisional remedy on behalf of the victim's mother inasmuch as she does not qualify as a representative within the meaning of the Executive Law and, in any event, she did not request that petitioner move for injunctive relief. However, such contentions were not advanced before Supreme Court and, therefore, are not properly before us ( see City of Albany v Central Locating Serv., 228 AD2d 920, 922; General Motors Acceptance Corp. v Bank of Richmondville, 203 AD2d 851, 853).

Next, respondent's assertion that certain funds in his account — specifically the $2,452 drawn from a pension fund — qualify as "[e]arned income" and, thus, cannot be considered "[f]unds of a convicted person" eligible for recovery in a civil action (Executive Law § 632-a [c], [f]) is misplaced. The distinction between earned and unearned income is relevant only to determine whether petitioner must be notified, and has no effect on the ability of a crime victim or a victim's representative to recover such income in a civil action ( see Governor's Approval Mem, Bill Jacket, L 2001, ch 62, at 3, reprinted in 2001 NY Legis Ann, at 44; Senate Introducer Mem in Support of L 2001, ch 62, reprinted in 2001 McKinney's Session Laws of NY, at 1306).

Furthermore, we find no error in Supreme Court granting the injunctive relief. Although generally unavailable in actions for money damages, injunctive remedies are permitted in cases such as this ( see Matter of New York State Crime Victims Bd. v Harris, 68 AD3d 1269, 1271-1272). Inasmuch as the record demonstrates that petitioner satisfied the criteria for obtaining a preliminary injunction ( see CPLR 6311, 6312), Supreme Court's order will not be disturbed ( see Matter of New York State Crime Victims Bd. v Harris, 68 AD3d at 1271-1272; Matter of New York State Crime Victims Bd. v Mitchell, 12 AD3d 870, lv denied 4 NY3d 707).

Respondent's remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.