Matter of Walker v. Martuscello

Summary

The Appellate Division, Third Department held that a state respondent was not substantially justified in imposing a 120-day segregated-confinement sanction on an incarcerated individual housed in a residential mental health unit without satisfying the statutory requirements of the HALT Act and SHU Exclusion Law. The court also rejected the finding that special circumstances made a counsel-fee award unjust under CPLR 8601. It reversed the order denying counsel fees, granted the motion, and remitted the matter to determine the amount of the award.

Holdings

1. The State's position was not substantially justified because the record lacked a reasonable basis in law and fact for imposing 120 days of segregated confinement on an incarcerated person housed in a residential mental health unit.
2. The petitioner's misconduct and the State's duty to protect prison employees and incarcerated persons did not constitute special circumstances making a fee award unjust.
3. Petitioner was entitled to counsel fees under CPLR 8601 as the prevailing party in the article 78 proceeding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State's position in imposing a 120-day segregated-confinement sanction was substantially justified under CPLR 8601.
2. Whether special circumstances made an award of counsel fees unjust under CPLR 8601.
3. Whether petitioner was entitled to counsel fees after prevailing in the underlying CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded