Case Background
Paul Betances, Lloyd A. Barnes and Gabriel Velez, also known as Gabriel Belize brought a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Brian Fischer, Anthony J. Annucci, Lucien J. LeClaire Jr., Glenn S. Goord, Andrea W. Evans, Mark Mantei, Terence Tracy, Robert J. Dennison, Anthony G. Ellis II and George B. Alexander, along with unidentified John and Jane Doe supervisory personnel of the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) and the New York State Division of Parole (DOP). The Plaintiffs filed the action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages. The Amended Class Action Complaint was filed October 20, 2011.
Cause
The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants administratively imposed post-release supervision (PRS) on them even though their sentencing Courts never included PRS as part of their sentences. The complaint cited cases in which the Second Circuit held that DOCS's administrative addition of PRS terms violated clearly established Supreme Court precedent. The Plaintiffs alleged that despite the Earley ruling, the Defendants continued imposing and enforcing PRS on individuals whose sentences never included it. The complaint cited a July 2, 2007 letter in which Defendant Annucci informed an inmate that DOCS would not consider itself bound by Earley unless a Court specifically ordered it to set aside that individual's PRS term. The Plaintiffs also alleged that Annucci had identified 8,100 inmates who could not lawfully be subjected to PRS under Earley, including 1,600 who had already been released and placed under PRS, and that the Defendants took no corrective action after gathering this information. The Plaintiffs brought their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Injury
Paul Betances pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree on or about July 20, 2004, and received a five-year determinate sentence that did not include PRS. DOCS and DOP imposed a five-year PRS term on him when he was released on April 24, 2008. He was arrested in November 2008 and charged with violating PRS conditions. His maximum determinate sentence expired on January 14, 2009. On January 23, 2009, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor drug possession and received a sentence set to expire on or about July 9, 2009. On February 23, 2009, the Division of Parole separately sentenced him to twelve months based on the alleged PRS violation. When his sentence for the drug charge ended in early July 2009, the Defendants continued to detain and incarcerate him based on the PRS violation. He was released only after Justice Richard L. Price granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding that DOCS had exceeded its authority by unilaterally imposing a five-year period of post-release supervision because the sentencing minutes clearly reflected that no period of PRS had been imposed by the sentencing Court.
Lloyd Barnes pleaded guilty to attempted assault and attempted burglary on July 31, 2000, and was sentenced on August 15, 2000, to a six-year determinate sentence that did not include PRS. DOCS and DOP imposed a five-year PRS term on him upon his release on October 19, 2005. He was arrested in the summer of 2008 and charged with violating PRS conditions. The Division of Parole sentenced him to three months based on the alleged violation. He was released in or around September or October 2008 after being incarcerated for three months. On November 14, 2008, Richmond County Supreme Court Justice Stephen Rooney confirmed that no mention of post-release supervision had been made at Barnes's original sentencing and reimposed his originally imposed determinate sentence without any term of post-release supervision.
Gabriel Velez pleaded guilty to attempted robbery on or about February 20, 2001, and received a five-year determinate sentence that did not include PRS. DOCS and DOP imposed a five-year PRS term on him after his release on July 2, 2004. He was arrested in July 2008 and charged with violating PRS conditions. On October 6, 2008, he pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his PRS and was sentenced to a mental health treatment facility. He was released from custody on October 8, 2008, after being incarcerated for three months. On October 15, 2008, the Supreme Court of New York, Bronx County, ordered him released from the terms of PRS itself in response to a habeas corpus petition.
The Plaintiffs claimed that as a result of this policy, they and the members of the class suffered loss of liberty, loss of wages, psychological pain and suffering, and mental anguish.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiffs asked the Court for a judgment declaring that the Defendants had committed the violations of law alleged in the complaint. They also sought an order directing Defendants Fischer, Annucci, Evans, Mantei and Tracy to disgorge any money collected from the Plaintiffs and class members under the PRS policy, compensatory damages against all Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial, punitive damages against all Defendants in an amount to be proven at trial, and an award of disbursements, costs and attorneys' fees.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Paul Betances | Lloyd A. Barnes | Gabriel Velez a/k/a Gabriel Belize, individually and on behalf of a class
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Matthew D. Brinckerhoff | Nicholas Bourland | Earl S Ward | Emma Lerner Freeman | Hafsa S. Mansoor | Jonathan S. Abady | Max Roller Selver
Defendant(s): Brian Fischer | Anthony J. Annucci | Terence Tracy
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Eric T. Schneiderman | Michael J. Keane | Anna Hehenberger | Peter Conor Morrison | Rebecca Ann Durden | Seth Jonathan Farber
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants knew they could not impose PRS without a Court order, a principle they traced to Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler, 298 U.S. 460 (1936). They relied on Earley v. Murray, 451 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2006), in which the Second Circuit described Wampler as clearly established Supreme Court precedent and stated that the only cognizable sentence is the one imposed by the judge. The complaint incorporated by reference a declaration from Elon Harpaz, an attorney with the Legal Aid Society's Parole Revocation Defense Unit, dated October 12, 2011. Harpaz stated that DOCS and the Division of Parole had engaged in a nearly two-year campaign of resistance to Earley, opposing habeas corpus petitions throughout the state even after all four Appellate Divisions had accepted the ruling, and that this resistance continued until the New York Court of Appeals decided Matter of Garner v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 10 N.Y.3d 358 (2008), on April 29, 2008. Harpaz further stated that even after Garner, the agencies argued that resentencing individuals to PRS nunc pro tunc would retroactively validate the PRS term and eliminate the need to release anyone from custody, a theory that was never adopted in a published decision by any New York Court and was ultimately rejected by the Third Department in State v. Randy M., 57 A.D.3d 1157 (3d Dept. 2008).
Defense
The Defendants denied the majority of the allegations in the complaint. They argued that their conduct did not violate clearly established federal law and was objectively reasonable, noting that federal circuit Courts disagreed on whether PRS could be an automatic consequence of a criminal sentence. The Defendants asserted qualified immunity, contending that no clearly established precedent precluded their actions and that state and federal Courts had rendered decisions indicating that the Defendants were to act just as they in fact acted at all relevant times. The Defendants pleaded nineteen affirmative defenses in total, including failure to state a claim, res judicata and collateral estoppel, discretionary authority, absence of willful or malicious conduct barring punitive damages, a bar under New York Penal Law, Eleventh Amendment immunity, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, mootness of injunctive and declaratory relief, expiration of the statute of limitations, failure to exhaust administrative or judicial remedies, a bar under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Plaintiffs' own culpable conduct and failure to mitigate, abstention under the Pullman, Younger and Colorado River doctrines, failure to allege the Defendants' personal involvement in any unlawful acts, and failure to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for class certification. Regarding the existence of a PRS policy, the Defendants admitted that hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of individuals had been subject to PRS as mandated by New York Penal Law, but denied the existence of an unlawful "PRS Policy" and averred that their actions reflected the state's policy at the time, which had been upheld by Courts and recognized as valid by the Plaintiffs' own defense counsel during the relevant period.
Jury Verdict
The jury reached its verdict on July 17, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On the first question, the jury awarded $200 in compensatory damages to each class member for each day of lost liberty caused by the Defendants' failure to take reasonable steps to terminate their unlawful post-release supervision.
On the second question, the jury awarded $800 in compensatory damages to each class member for each day of lost liberty caused by the Defendants' failure to take reasonable steps to terminate their incarceration for violating the conditions of unlawful post-release supervision.
On the third question, the jury awarded $100,000 to a class member identified as Ms. Crump for harm other than loss of liberty proximately caused by unlawfully imposed post-release supervision and her incarceration for violating its conditions. The verdict form specified that this award could not include damages for lost liberty.
The foreperson and seven additional jurors signed and dated the verdict form on July 17, 2026, and the Court was advised by note that the jury had reached its verdict and was ready to return to the Courtroom to announce it.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
