Case Name: In the Matter of Thomas Gambadoro et al., Petitioners, against J. Edwin La Vallee, as Warden of Clinton Prison, et al., Respondents; In the Matter of Frances Kahn et al., Petitioners, against Paul D. McGinnis, as Commissioner of Correction of the State of New York, et al., Respondents; In the Matter of Frances Kahn et al., Petitioners, against J. Edwin La Vallee, as Warden of Clinton Prison, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1960-01-09
Citations: 20 Misc. 2d 554
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Thomas Gambadoro et al., Petitioners, against J. Edwin La Vallee, as Warden of Clinton Prison, et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Frances Kahn et al., Petitioners, against Paul D. McGinnis, as Commissioner of Correction of the State of New York, et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Frances Kahn et al., Petitioners, against J. Edwin La Vallee, as Warden of Clinton Prison, et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 554–555

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Thomas Gambadoro et al., Petitioners, against J. Edwin La Vallee, as Warden of Clinton Prison, et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Frances Kahn et al., Petitioners, against Paul D. McGinnis, as Commissioner of Correction of the State of New York, et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Frances Kahn et al., Petitioners, against J. Edwin La Vallee, as Warden of Clinton Prison, et al., Respondents.
Supreme Court, Special Term, Rensselaer County,
January 9, 1960.
Frances Kahn, petitioner in person, and for other petitioners.
■ Louis J. Lefkowits, Attorney-General, for respondents.

Opinion:
Harry E. Schirick, J.
These are applications by three .inmates of Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York, to direct the Warden to permit them to confer with their attorney privately " within sight, but outside of hearing " of a prison guard.
• On August; 11,1959 petitioners' attorney wrote to the Warden asking permission to interview a total of 34 prisoners. She has been permitted- to interview the petitioners but the Warden has insisted mpon having a guard present in the room " in order to insure-against any impropriety or infraction of prison rules and regulations during the interview."
. The prisoners are confined pursuant to sentences imposed upon' their respective convictions. Their right to confer with counsel-after conviction is not absolute but must be subject to such- regulations as the Commissioner of Correction may prescribe pursuant to section 146 of the Correction Law (Matter of Hughes v. Cashin, 184 Misc. 757; Matter of Mummiani v. La Vallee, 21 Misc 2d 415).
The court finds no impropriety in the regulations here enforced.
The applications are dismissed.