State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: May 19, 2016 520784 

________________________________

In the Matter of SHAWN M. 

CAMPBELL,

Appellant,

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHERYL MORRIS, as Director of

Ministerial, Family and

Volunteer Services, et al.,

Respondents.

________________________________

Calendar Date: April 26, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Egan Jr., Devine and Mulvey, JJ.

__________

Shawn M. Campbell, Coxsackie, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Allyson B.

Levine of counsel), for respondents.

__________

Peters, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Melkonian,

J.), entered March 16, 2015 in Albany County, which dismissed

petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR

article 78, to review a determination of respondent Director of

Ministerial, Family and Volunteer Services denying petitioner's

application to participate in the family reunion program.

Petitioner was convicted of multiple crimes, including two

counts of murder in the second degree, and, in 2006, he was

sentenced as a second felony offender to an aggregate term of 25

years to life in prison. At the time of his incarceration, he

was married to his first wife, who he divorced in 2009. He
-2- 520784 

married his second wife in 2010 while he was in prison, but later

divorced her as well. In 2012, petitioner married his third wife

and, in December 2013, he filed an application to participate in

the family reunion program (hereinafter FRP) with her. His

application underwent special review (see 7 NYCRR 220.2 [c] [1])

and was subsequently denied on the grounds that there was no

disruption of family ties and that petitioner's multiple

marriages did not demonstrate a commitment to preserving family

ties. After that determination was upheld on administrative

appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding

challenging it. Following joinder of issue, Supreme Court

dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued. 

It is well settled that an inmate's participation in the

FRP is a privilege and not a right (see Matter of Doe v Coughlin,

71 NY2d 48, 55 [1987], cert denied 488 US 879 [1988]; Matter of

Rodriquez v Annucci, 129 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2015]). The

determination of whether an inmate may participate is "heavily

discretionary" and will not be disturbed if it has a rational

basis (Matter of Doe v Coughlin, 71 NY2d at 56; see Matter of

Mays v Morris, 133 AD3d 1050, 1051 [2015]; Matter of Stacione v

Baker, 24 AD3d 843, 843 [2005]). Significantly, the goal of the

FRP is "to preserve, enhance and strengthen family ties that have

been disrupted as a result of incarceration" (7 NYCRR 220.1; see

Matter of Williamson v Nuttall, 35 AD3d 926, 927 [2006]). 

Here, petitioner's third marriage occurred while he was in

prison serving a life sentence. Given that this marriage did not

predate his incarceration, petitioner's participation in the FRP

would not further the goal of sustaining family ties that have

been disrupted due to incarceration (see Matter of Couser v

Goord, 1 AD3d 663, 664-665 [2003]). In addition, petitioner was

married to three different women between 2009 and 2012, two of

whom he met while in prison. Such conduct does not evince a

commitment to preserving familial relations. In view of the

foregoing, we find that the denial of petitioner's application

has a rational basis. We further find that petitioner's equal

protection argument is without merit (see generally Matter of Doe

v Coughlin, 71 NY2d at 56-57).
-3- 520784 

Lahtinen, Egan Jr., Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court