New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Correction Law § 138 (2026)

Institutional rules and regulations for incarcerated individuals at all correctional facilities

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 138. Institutional rules and regulations for incarcerated
individuals at all correctional facilities. 1. All institutional rules
and regulations defining and prohibiting incarcerated individuals
misconduct shall be published and posted in prominent locations within
the institution and set forth in both the English and Spanish language.
  2. All incarcerated individuals shall be provided with written copies
of these rules and regulations upon admission to the institution and all
incarcerated individuals presently incarcerated in a correctional
facility shall be provided with written copies of these rules and
regulations.
  3. Facility rules shall be specific and precise giving all
incarcerated individuals actual notice of the conduct prohibited.
Facility rules shall state the range of disciplinary sanctions which can
be imposed for violation of each rule.
  4. Incarcerated individuals shall not be disciplined for making
written or oral statements, demands, or requests involving a change of
institutional conditions, policies, rules, regulations, or laws
affecting an institution.
  5. No incarcerated individual shall be disciplined except for a
violation of a published and posted written rule or regulation, a copy
of which has been provided the incarcerated individual.
  6. All rules and regulations pertaining to incarcerated individuals
established by the department of corrections and community supervision
and all rules and regulations pertaining to incarcerated individuals
established by any institutional staff at any state correctional
facility shall be reviewed annually by the commissioner of the
department of corrections and community supervision.
  7. De-escalation, intervention, informational reports and the
withdrawal of incentives shall be the preferred methods of responding to
misbehavior unless the department determines that non-disciplinary
interventions have failed, or that non-disciplinary interventions would
not succeed and the misbehavior involved an act listed in subparagraph
(ii) of paragraph (k) of subdivision six of section one hundred
thirty-seven of this article, in which case, as a last resort, the
department shall have the authority to issue misbehavior reports, pursue
disciplinary charges, or impose new or additional segregated confinement
sanctions.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 64 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Collins v. Goord, 581 F. Supp. 2d 563 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Collins v. Goord, 581 F. Supp. 2d 563 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). · cites it 4× “) The main allegations in the petition are that the respondents violated N.Y. Corrections Law § 138 [5] and due process because they failed to provide him with new and contemporaneous copies of the prison rules and regulations books and did not post the rules and regulations in…”

Richard v. Dignean, 126 F. Supp. 3d 334 (W.D.N.Y. 2015). · cites it 4× “As an initial matter, it does not appear that a violation of Correction Law § 138 states a constitutional violation, see Gill v.”

Richard v. Fischer, 38 F. Supp. 3d 340 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). · cites it 2× “” N.Y. Correct. Law § 138 (1). Plaintiff misconstrues this section as requiring DOCCS to provide him with notice of all prison rules and not just rules regarding inmate discipline.”

Cabassa v. Kuhlmann, 173 A.D.2d 973 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). · cites it 5× “Petitioner contends that (1) the disciplinary charges against him are proscribed by the provisions of Correction Law § 138 (4), (2) his 1st Amendment rights were violated, (3) he did not receive adequate notice defining the proscribed conduct as required by Correction Law § 138…”

Matter of Micolo v. Annucci, 140 A.D.3d 1442 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · cites it 2× “We reject petitioner’s contention that he was disciplined in violation of Correction Law § 138, as he does not allege that he has never received a copy of the rules at issue and, moreover, the record establishes that he had actual knowledge that the conduct he engaged in was…”

Lowrance v. Coughlin, 862 F. Supp. 1090 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). · cites it 2× “N.Y.Correc.Law § 138(4) (McKinney 1987) (“Inmates shall not be disciplined for making written or oral statements, demands, or requests involving a change of institutional conditions, policies, rules, regulations, or laws affecting an institution”).”

Di Rose v. New York State Dep't of Corr., 228 A.D.2d 868 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996). · cites it 2× “2 [B] [9] [i]), is impermissibly vague in contravention of due process requirements and Correction Law § 138 (3). In our view, a person of ordinary intelligence (see, Matter of Hop Wah v Coughlin, 162 AD2d 879; Matter of Rabi v LeFevre, 120 AD2d 875 ) would have fair notice that…”

Gill v. Hoadley, 261 F. Supp. 2d 113 (N.D.N.Y. 2003). “To the extent that plaintiff also asserts pendent state claims under Correction Law § 138 based on defendants’ alleged retaliatory conduct, due to my recommended disposition on plaintiff’s retaliation claims I also recommend that the court decline to exercise pendent…”

Pino v. Dalsheim, 605 F. Supp. 1305 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). · cites it 2× “Among the rights and procedures provided by State law are: (1) the right to be provided with written copies of all institutional rules and regulations defining and prohibiting inmate misconduct; N.Y.Corr.Law § 138(2) ' (McKinney Supp.1983-84); (2) the right not to be disciplined…”

Graham v. Henderson, 224 F.R.D. 59 (N.D.N.Y. 2004). “Plaintiff characterized Mahunik’s conduct as particularly egregious in view of Corrections Law § 138(4) which states: “Inmates shall not be disciplined for making written or oral statements, demands, or requests involving a change of institutional conditions, policies, rules,…”

Johnson v. Coughlin, 205 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994). · cites it 4× “The petitioner subsequently commenced these CPLR article 78 proceedings. The Supreme Court granted the petitions and annulled the determinations on the ground that the petitioner had not timely received a copy of the inmate rule book, as required by Correction Law § 138 (5).”

Baker v. Scully, 157 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990). · cites it 5× “By their amended petition, the petitioners allege that wages were improperly deducted from their salaries in that (1) the time card rules and regulations were not filed with the Secretary of State, in violation of NY Constitution, article IV, § 8, (2) the time card rules and…”

Show all 64 citing cases →

— N.Y. Correction Law § 138(1) — 1 case

Hodges v. Jones, 873 F. Supp. 737 (N.D.N.Y. 1995).

— N.Y. Correction Law § 138(2) — 1 case

Pino v. Dalsheim, 605 F. Supp. 1305 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). “Among the rights and procedures provided by State law are: (1) the right to be provided with written copies of all institutional rules and regulations defining and prohibiting inmate misconduct; N.Y.Corr.Law § 138(2) ' (McKinney Supp.1983-84); (2) the right not to be disciplined…”

— N.Y. Correction Law § 138(3) — 2 cases

Rudolph v. Cuomo, 916 F. Supp. 1308 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).

Farinaro v. Coughlin, 642 F. Supp. 276 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).

— N.Y. Correction Law § 138(4) — 6 cases

Lowrance v. Coughlin, 862 F. Supp. 1090 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). “N.Y.Correc.Law § 138(4) (McKinney 1987) (“Inmates shall not be disciplined for making written or oral statements, demands, or requests involving a change of institutional conditions, policies, rules, regulations, or laws affecting an institution”).”

Hasan Jamal Abdul Majid v. Henderson, 533 F. Supp. 1257 (N.D.N.Y. 1982).

Gaston v. Coughlin, 81 F. Supp. 2d 381 (N.D.N.Y. 1999).

Salahuddin v. Harris, 657 F. Supp. 369 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).

— N.Y. Correction Law § 138(5) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.