AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

JOHN BAGLIVI et al., Appellants, v. ROBERT SISE et al., Respondents.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the first decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor a provision declaring (1) that the Chief Administrator of the Office of Court Administration and the Chief Administrative Judge of the County of Nassau may lawfully direct the petitioners to guard juveniles in detention cells at the Family Court, Nassau County, and (2) that the Sheriff of Nassau County does not have exclusive control of detention cells housing juveniles in the Family Court, Nassau County. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Special Term correctly concluded that the determination of the Director of Employee Relations of the Office of Court Administration was not arbitrary or capricious (see, Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 222; Matter of Gavigan v. McCoy, 37 N.Y.2d 548; Matter of Fitzpatrick v. Ruffo, 110 A.D.2d 1032, affd 66 N.Y.2d 647). Based on the record before us, we have also determined that Special Term did not err when it found that the petitioners' request for declaratory relief with respect to the possible future use of court officers and senior court officers to guard prisoners in detention cells in courts other than the Family Court was premature (see, American Ins. Assn. v. Chu, 64 N.Y.2d 379, cert denied ___ US ___, 106 S Ct 36; New York Public Interest Research Group v. Carey, 42 N.Y.2d 527). However, since court officers currently guard juveniles in detention cells at the Family Court, the legality of their use for this purpose is ripe for judicial resolution. The petitioners' basic argument is that the detention cells in the various courts are merely an extension of the county jail and that the Sheriff of Nassau County therefore exercises exclusive jurisdiction over them. With respect to the Family Court, this argument clearly lacks merit. Family Court Act § 304.1 precludes the use of a county jail or other facility used to detain adults to house juveniles. No statute gives the County Sheriff custody over juveniles at any time. Therefore, the detention cells at the Family Court are clearly not an extension of the county jail or otherwise under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sheriff. Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BAGLIVI v. SISE
(Dec 1, 1986)