ROULAN, TIMOTHY A. v. COUNTY OF ONONDAGA
CA 11-00086
| N.Y. App. Div. | Dec 30, 2011Background
- This action challenges various provisions of Onondaga County’s ACP Plan under County Law article 18-B.
- Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the ACP Plan is illegal, ultra vires, or unconstitutional.
- The ACP Plan is a bar association plan coordinated by OCBA Assigned Counsel Program, Inc. (ACP) under County Law §722.
- The court denied, then granted cross-motions for partial summary judgment; leave to renew was granted and then adhered to.
- The court ultimately ruled that only section D(2) of the ACP Plan is invalid, finding the rest valid.
- The majority affirming decision notes the plan aims to provide indigent defense from arraignment forward, subject to court review of compensation
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ACP Plan complies with 18-B and court powers | ACP Plan violates 18-B and usurps court power | ACP Plan is statutorily authorized and properly approved | D(2) invalid; rest valid; plan affirmed as modified |
| Whether D(2) violates right to counsel | D(2) impeded right to counsel at arraignment | D(2) needed to ensure eligibility controls | D(2) declared invalid; rest upheld |
| Whether ACP can set voucher rules affecting court compensation | Voucher rules interfere with court’s fixation of compensation | ACP guidance not precluded by 18-B; final payment by court | Plan may propose voucher rules; final compensation remains court’s function |
| Whether section C(4) prohibits compensation for previously retained attorneys | C(4) improperly bars compensation for previously retained counsel | C(4) consistent with policy against fee insurance | C(4) invalid as to compensation; majority reformulated; Ward/Goodman distinctions clarified |
Key Cases Cited
- Pless v Town of Royalton, 185 AD2d 659 (N.Y. App.Div. 4th Dept. 1993) (declaratory relief appropriate to challenge ACP Plan (context))
- Hurrell-Harring v State of New York, 15 NY3d 8 (NY Ct. App. 2010) (class action on indigent defense rights; right to counsel concerns addressed)
- Goehler v Cortland County, 70 AD3d 57 (N.Y. App.Div. 3rd Dept. 2010) (review of local law versus statutory plan for assigned counsel)
- Ward v. County of Oneida, 199 AD2d 683 (N.Y. App.Div. 3rd Dept. 1993) (limits on compensation for retained counsel discussed)
- Goodman v. City of New York, 45 AD2d 16 (N.Y. App.Div. 1st Dept. 1974) (inherent court power vs. 18-B compensation scope)