Matter of Williams v. Holford

── Matter of Williams v. Holford ── Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General <div>Matter of Williams v Holford - 2026 NY Slip Op 03208 <div> skip to main content </div> <div> <p>It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.</p> </div> <div> <header> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/nys-logo-white.svg" alt=""> </div> <div> <span title="Law Reporting Bureau Home Page">Law Reporting <br>Bureau <span></span></span> <span>Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter</span> <nav> Court Decisions Resources About </nav> </div> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/lrb-seal.png" alt=""> </div> </header> </div> <nav> <ol> <li>Home</li> <li>All Court Decisions</li> <li>Decisions</li> </ol> </nav> <div> <div> <h1>Matter of Williams v Holford</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 03208</p> <p>May 21, 2026</p> <p>Appellate Division, Third Department</p> <p>Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</p> <p>This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</p> </div> <div> <p>In the Matter of Danny Williams, Appellant,</p> <p>v</p> <p>Diane H. Holford, as Sentence Review Coordinator for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.</p> </div> <p>Decided and Entered:May 21, 2026</p> <p>CV-24-1089</p> <p>Calendar Date: April 17, 2026</p> <p>Before: Clark, J.P., Ceresia, Mcshan, Mackey And Ryba, JJ.</p> <div> <p>Danny Williams, Ossining, appellant pro se.</p> <p>Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Rachel Raimondi of counsel), for respondent.</p> </div> <span>[*1]</span> <p>Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Andra Ackerman, J.), entered May 29, 2024 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 and action for declaratory judgment, to, among other things, review a determination of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision calculating petitioner's parole eligibility date.</p> <p>Petitioner was convicted of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and, in February 2012, his sentence of probation upon that conviction was revoked and he was resentenced to a prison term of 1⅓ to 4 years. Petitioner was convicted separately of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree and, in February 2012, was sentenced to serve 25 years to life on the murder conviction and 25 years, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision, on each of the other convictions. All of the foregoing sentences were to run consecutively with the exception of those imposed upon the attempted murder and assault convictions, which were to run concurrently to each other.</p> <p>As is relevant here, after an amended jail time certificate was issued in 2023 that increased petitioner's jail time credit to 646 days, the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (hereinafter DOCCS) recalculated his initial parole eligibility date. After his challenge to that calculation was rejected by DOCCS, petitioner commenced this combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, arguing that DOCCS erred in calculating his parole eligibility date and that his sentences only ran consecutive to each other "in theory." Supreme Court disagreed on both issues and dismissed the petition/complaint, prompting this appeal.</p> <p>We affirm. Upon this appeal, petitioner focuses solely upon the imposition of the consecutive sentences and has therefore abandoned any challenge to the application of jail time credit by DOCCS in calculating his parole eligibility date (<i>see</i> <i>Matter of Smith v Annucci</i>, 162 AD3d 1430, 1431 n [3d Dept 2018], <i>lv denied</i> 32 NY3d 909 [2018]). We would, in any event,